Family and Medical Leave in
2012:
Technical Report
Contract #GS10F0086K
TO DOLF109630906
September 7, 2012
Revised April 18, 2014
Prepared for:
Jonathan Simonetta
U.S. Department of Labor
200 Constitution Ave, NW
Washington, DC 20210
Submitted by:
Abt Associates Inc.
55 Wheeler Street
Cambridge, MA 02138
Jacob Alex Klerman
Kelly Daley
Alyssa Pozniak
Family and Medical Leave in 2012: Final Report
Preface
This version of the FMLA Technical Report has been updated to reflect minor changes in content and
language and correct minor errors. Additionally, the report has been formally edited to revise
grammatical or typing errors and ensure stylistic consistency and proper report formatting. This report
has not been revised to reflect any changes based on public policy that may have gone into effect
since the initial report submission date of September 9, 2012.
Abt Associates Inc.
Family and Medical Leave in 2012: Final Report
Abstract
In 2012, Abt Associates surveyed 1,812 worksites and 2,852 employees about experiences with
family and medical leave. The worksite survey includes both sites that are covered by the Family and
Medical Leave Act (FMLA) and those that are not covered. The employee survey includes employees
that took leave, those that had an unmet need for leave, those that met both of these conditions, and
those that met neither. It also included employees who are eligible for the FMLA and those who are
not. These surveys update similar surveys conducted in 1995 and 2000. This document presents the
findings of the survey, including comparisons between covered and uncovered worksites, between
eligible and ineligible employees, and over time. In addition to the main report, there are an Executive
Summary, a Methodology Report, Methodology Report Appendices, a Detailed Results Appendix,
and a Public Use File Documentation volume.
Abt Associates Inc.
Family and Medical Leave in 2012: Final Report
Acknowledgements
This report is a collaboration of the United States Department of Labor (DOL)’s Chief Evaluation
Office (CEO), Wage and Hour Division (WHD), and Abt Associates. This effort has received the
strong support of the CEO—including Jean Grossman, Demetra Nightingale, and Jonathan Simonetta.
The survey and this report would not have happened without their vision and day-to-day input. At
WHD, Libby Hendrix’s understanding of FMLA and her experiences with the fielding and use of the
previous survey were invaluable. Other WHD staff participating in the effort included Mary Ziegler,
Helen Applewhaite, and Karen Livingston. Valuable comments on earlier drafts and presentations
were received from the staff of the Council of Economic Advisors, the DOL Solicitor’s Office, and
the DOL Chief Economist.
At Abt Associates, Glen Schneider served as Project Quality Advisor, providing key insights
throughout the project, and careful review of this final report. Members of our Technical Working
Group (TWG)—Ann Bookman, Portia Wu, Christopher Ruhm, Jane Waldfogel, and Christine
Walters—provided valuable feedback throughout the project. Katie Heintz and Cindy Taylor
provided valuable management guidance. Katherine Wen, Krista Olson, Johanna Hudgens, Bethany
Bradshaw, Ben Cushing, and Rachel Banay provided solid research assistance. Nancy McGarry
provided programming support. Suzanne Erfurth and Jan Nicholson edited the document.
The survey was fielded by Abt-SRBI under the leadership of Kelly Daley. Allison Ackermann served
as Acting Project Director during the early phase of the project and led the Employee Survey effort.
Julie Pacer led the Worksite Survey effort. Courtney Kennedy and Ben Phillips led the technical
design and weighting effort. Marci Schalk also contributed to the weighting effort.
Abt Associates Inc.
Family and Medical Leave in 2012: Final Report
Table of Contents
Executive Summary .............................................................................................................................. i
1.
Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 1
1.1 Background on the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) ........................................... 1
1.1.1 Changes in FMLA Policy since FMLA’s Inception ............................................ 2
1.1.2 Proposed Changes to the FMLA.......................................................................... 3
1.2 The 2012 Surveys .............................................................................................................. 4
1.2.1 2012 Employee Survey ........................................................................................ 5
1.2.2 Characteristics of the Employee Sample ............................................................. 6
1.2.3 2012 Worksite Survey ....................................................................................... 11
1.2.4 Characteristics of the Worksite Sample ............................................................. 12
1.2.5 Changes in the Survey Focus from 2000 ........................................................... 14
1.3 Notes on Discussion and Language ................................................................................. 14
1.4 Structure of this Report.................................................................................................... 16
2.
FMLA Coverage and Eligibility ............................................................................................. 17
2.1 Covered Firms in the Sample .......................................................................................... 17
2.2 Eligible Employees in the Sample ................................................................................... 20
2.3 Employees’ Knowledge and Awareness of FMLA ......................................................... 23
2.4 Qualifying Reasons for Leave ......................................................................................... 27
2.5 Other Terms of Employment ........................................................................................... 33
3.
Worksites’ FMLA and Other Leave Policies......................................................................... 41
3.1 Who Is Considered Eligible............................................................................................. 41
3.2 Worksites’ FMLA Notification Provisions ..................................................................... 43
3.3 Administering FMLA ...................................................................................................... 46
4.
Employees’ Leave Taking Practices ....................................................................................... 59
4.1 Prevalence of Leave......................................................................................................... 60
4.2 Number of Leaves Taken for a Qualifying FMLA Reason ............................................. 65
4.3 Duration of Leave ............................................................................................................ 67
4.4 Reason for Taking Leave ................................................................................................. 69
4.5 Intermittent Leave ........................................................................................................... 75
4.6 Leave for a Qualifying FMLA Reason at Covered Worksites ........................................ 79
4.7 Leave for a Qualifying FMLA Reason at Uncovered Worksites .................................... 83
5.
Conditions of Leave Before, During and After Taking Leave ............................................. 85
5.1 Notice Prior to Leave....................................................................................................... 85
5.2 Medical Certification and Recertification of Need for Leave ......................................... 87
5.3 Pay and Benefits While Taking Leave ............................................................................ 92
5.4 Fitness-for-Duty Certification before Return to Work .................................................. 107
5.5 Return to Work After Leave .......................................................................................... 108
6.
Employee’s Unmet Need for Leave ...................................................................................... 114
6.1 Leave Needed but Not Taken ........................................................................................ 114
Abt Associates Inc.
Family and Medical Leave in 2012: Final Report
6.2
6.3
6.4
6.5
Number of Leaves Needed but Not Taken .................................................................... 120
Reasons for Needing Leave ........................................................................................... 121
Reasons for Not Taking Leave ...................................................................................... 127
Actions in Lieu of Leave ............................................................................................... 131
7.
Subpopulation Analyses ........................................................................................................ 132
7.1 Leave for Military Personnel ......................................................................................... 132
7.2 Leave for Paternity and Maternity Reasons................................................................... 135
7.2.1 Worksite Offers of Paid Parental Leave .......................................................... 135
7.2.2 Employees’ Take-Up and Need of Leave ........................................................ 138
7.3 Leave by Sexual Orientation ......................................................................................... 143
8.
Worksite Responses and Perceptions ................................................................................... 144
8.1 Worksites’ Perspective on How Work is Covered ........................................................ 144
8.2 Employee’s Perspective on How Work is Covered ....................................................... 151
8.3 Worksites’ Difficulties Related to Leave Taking .......................................................... 153
8.4 Perceptions of Misuse of the FMLA ............................................................................. 156
8.5 Effects of the FMLA...................................................................................................... 156
9.
Conclusion .............................................................................................................................. 161
9.1 Evidence from the 2012 Surveys ................................................................................... 161
9.2 Directions for Future Study ........................................................................................... 162
References ......................................................................................................................................... 164
Abt Associates Inc.
Family and Medical Leave in 2012: Final Report
Executive Summary
Employers hire employees to do tasks. When employees take leave to attend to their own medical
issues or to the medical issues of other members of their family, employers must find some other way
to get those tasks done. Under common law, employers may offer almost any terms of employment—
which may or may not include offering leave. The Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (FMLA)
guarantees up to 12 workweeks of unpaid leave each leave year to qualifying employees for specified
family and medical leave reasons and, pursuant to amendments to the law, up to 26 workweeks of
leave in a single 12-month period to care for a seriously ill or injured covered service member.
The nation now has nearly two decades of experience with the FMLA. That experience—including
both employer workplace practices and employee leave taking patterns—was described by earlier
surveys of worksites and employees conducted in 1995 and in 2000. In 2012, Abt Associates
conducted a third pair of surveys for the Department of Labor, which is responsible for administering
and enforcing the FMLA. Key findings from these surveys are summarized in this Executive
Summary. The document begins with a brief description of the 2012 surveys followed by an overview
of major findings. A more in-depth review of findings plus methodological detail is contained in the
project’s main report and technical appendices.
The 2012 surveys
Like the 1995 and 2000 surveys, the 2012 effort included two surveys:
•
Employee Survey: Conducted by random-digit dial (RDD) using computer-assisted telephone
interviewing (CATI), calling landlines and cell phones between February 1 and June 24, 2012,
yielding 2,852 completed interviews (including oversamples of “leave takers” and those with
“unmet need for leave”).
•
Worksite Survey: Conducted by a respondent-selected combination of phone (using CATI) or web
between March 12 and June 15, 2012, yielding 1,812 completed interviews with worksites (not
merely corporate headquarters).
The analysis is based on the use of sampling weights to adjust for stratified sampling and survey nonresponse.
Most worksites are not covered by the FMLA, though more than
half of employees are eligible for the protections of the FMLA.
To be covered by the FMLA, a worksite must be part of a firm with at least 50 employees. Only about
one in six worksites reports that it is covered by the FMLA (17%); another 30% are unsure. These
uncovered and unsure worksites tend to be small; covered worksites tend to be larger.
Not all employees at covered worksites are eligible. To be eligible an employee must: (i) work for a
firm with 50 employees within 75 miles of the employee’s worksite; (ii) have 12 months of tenure
with this firm; and (iii) have 1,250 hours of service in the past year (about 24 hours per week). Only
slightly more than half of all employees report meeting all three of these conditions to be eligible for
the protections of the FMLA (59%).
Abt Associates Inc.
▌pg. i
Family and Medical Leave in 2012: Final Report
Expanding eligibility to smaller worksites would modestly increase eligibility. Currently, for an
employee to be eligible the FMLA requires that the firm have 50 employees within 75 miles of the
employee’s worksite; lowering the cutoff to 30 employees would increase eligibility from 59% to
63%, and lowering it further to 20 employees would increase it to 67%. Maintaining the 50
employees within 75 miles requirement, but lowering the hours of service requirement from an
average of 24 to an average of 15 hours per week (from 1,250 hours to 780) would increase eligibility
from 59% to 63%.
Leave is not uncommon.
Eligible employees may take up to 12 weeks of leave per year for FMLA-qualifying reasons, which
include: (i) serious health condition of self, spouse, parent, child; (ii) new child (birth, adoption,
foster); and (iii) deployment of the employee’s parent, spouse or child to covered active duty as a
member of the regular Armed Forces or reserves. Eligible employees may also take up to 26 weeks of
leave in a single 12-month period for a serious injury or illness of a covered service member who is
the employee’s parent, spouse or child.
Thirteen percent of all employees took leave for a qualifying FMLA reason in the past year. This is
unchanged from 2000. Rates of leave taking are higher among those eligible for the FMLA (16%)
than for those not eligible (10%). Some of this difference may be due to the causal effect of the
FMLA, but some of the difference is likely due to the factors that affect eligibility (e.g., firm size, job
tenure, hours worked). Thus, it is also likely that at least some of this difference in rates of leave
taking would remain even in the absence of the FMLA.
Most leave taken is for the employee’s own illness (55%). Leave for pregnancy or a new child, and
for illness of qualifying relative (spouse, child, or parent), is less common (21% and 18%
respectively). Leave for other qualifying reasons, including military reasons, is quite rare (2%).
Most leave is short. Nearly half of all leave events last 10 days or less (42%); less than a fifth (17%)
last more than 60 days. This distribution is similar across eligible and ineligible employees.
Approximately two-thirds of all employees have heard of the FMLA (66%), with a higher percentage
of employees at covered worksites having heard of the Act compared to employees at uncovered
worksites (71% vs. 53%). Most employees know the reasons covered for leave by the FMLA, but
employees also appear to believe that the FMLA is broader than it actually is.
Most employees receive some pay while on leave.
The FMLA guarantees the rights of employees to return to their pre-leave position or to an equivalent
position (i.e., one that is virtually identical to their previously held position). However, the Act
includes no requirement that employers provide any pay during the leave. Nevertheless, most
employees receive some pay while on leave: 48% report receiving full pay and another 17% receive
partial pay, usually but not exclusively through regular paid vacation leave, sick leave, or other “paid
time off” hours. Rates of full pay drop sharply for leaves of more than 10 days (60% for leaves of 10
days or less, 40% for leaves of more than 10 days). Most employees who took leave in the past year
report that they returned to work because there was no longer a need for leave (78%). Despite the
receipt of some pay, the inability to afford leave is another common reason for returning to work
(40%).
Abt Associates Inc.
▌pg. ii
Family and Medical Leave in 2012: Final Report
Unmet need for leave is limited.
A small proportion of employees report that they needed leave but were unable to take it in the past
year (5%). Rates of unmet need for leave were similar across eligible and ineligible employees, but
more than twice as high as in 2000. Inability to afford the leave is the reason given by nearly half of
those with unmet need for leave (46%).
Most employers report little negative impact of the FMLA.
The results from the Worksite Survey vary depending on whether each worksite is given equal weight
(“weighting by worksite”) or larger worksites are given more weight (“weighting by employees”).
Therefore, we present both sets of results below.
Most covered worksites that are large enough to have eligible employees (that is, 50 employees
within 75 miles) report little difficulty complying with the FMLA (when the data are weighted by
worksite, only 14% report “somewhat difficult”; only 1% report “very difficult”). However, larger
worksites are more likely to report difficulty complying, such that these figures increase to 3% for
“very difficult” and 29% for “somewhat difficult” when the data are weighted by employees. In
addition, 30% report that the cost of administering the FMLA is rising (50% when weighted by
employees). Few worksites (less than 10%) perceive negative effects of complying with the FMLA
on “employee productivity, absenteeism, turnover, career advancement, and morale, as well as the
business’s profitability.” However, these negative reports are more common among large worksites
(29% when the data are weighted by employees).1
While there has been considerable discussion of and concern expressed by some employers regarding
intermittent leave (that is, two or more episodes of leave for the same reason), employee responses
suggest that such leave is not common (only about 3% of employees took any intermittent leave).
Reports of negative impacts on profitability and productivity due to intermittent leave are rare (6% or
less), although much more common when the data are weighted by employees (as much as 25%).
Closing thoughts
The nation now has nearly two decades’ experience with the FMLA. Updating results from 1995 and
2000, the 2012 surveys characterize the leave experiences of worksites and employees. Based on the
2012 surveys, it appears that employees’ use of leave, and employers’ granting and administration of
leave, have achieved a level of stability. Employees actively make use of the intended benefits
established by the Act, but appear to have limited knowledge of what the Act specifically entails and
covers. At the same time, most employers report that complying with the FMLA imposes minimal
burden on their operations, although a subset of employers reported difficulty complying.
1
As discussed in the following Section 1.2.3 of this report, “the sampling frame for the Worksite Survey is
the 2012 Dun’s Market Identifiers (DMI) file. In the terminology of the DMI, we included all branch
locations as units eligible to be sampled. Following DOL, in this report we refer to such branch locations as
‘worksites.’ Thus, a business entity (hereafter a ‘firm’) may have multiple worksites.” As noted in section
1.3, “with regard to findings from the Worksite Survey, we distinguish between the ‘worksite’ that
responded to the survey versus all of the firm’s sites as applicable to the specific findings.”
Abt Associates Inc.
▌pg. iii
Family and Medical Leave in 2012: Final Report
1.
Introduction
Employers hire employees to do tasks. When employees take leave to attend to their own medical
issues or to the medical issues of other members of their family, employers must find some other way
to get those tasks done. Under common law, employers may offer almost any terms of employment—
which may or may not include offering leave. The Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (FMLA)
was landmark federal legislation which has helped millions of working families balance the demands
of the workplace with the needs of their families and their own health. The FMLA guarantees up to
12 workweeks of unpaid leave each leave year to qualifying employees for specified family and
medical leave reasons and, pursuant to amendments to the law, up to 26 workweeks of leave in a
single 12-month period to care for a seriously ill or injured covered service member.
The nation now has nearly two decades of experience with the FMLA. That experience—including
both employer workplace practices and employee leave-taking patterns—was described by earlier
surveys of worksites and employees conducted in 1995 and in 2000. The U.S. Department of Labor
(DOL or the Department) used that information in support of its regulatory and compliance activities
in administering and enforcing the law. Since the last survey was fielded, the labor market continues
to evolve, the face of the American family continues to change, and there have been several changes
to the FMLA statute and regulations. DOL posted a Notice of Proposed Information Collection on
April 1, 2011 (76 FR 18254) proposing surveys necessary to provide an updated characterization of
family and medical leave in America.
This report describes the results of that information collection effort. Under a contract with the
Department, Abt Associates conducted surveys of worksites and employees to understand their
experiences with family and medical leave. The surveys consider leave broadly: the Worksite Survey
includes both worksites covered by the FMLA and worksites not covered by the FMLA. Similarly,
the Employee Survey includes both employees eligible for the protections of the FMLA and
employees not eligible for the protections of the FMLA. Where possible, the report compares
estimates from the 2012 surveys to estimates from the earlier surveys. These results should be of
interest to employees, worksites, DOL, Congress, and state legislatures.
1.1
Background on the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA)
American family and medical leave policy can usefully be divided into two periods. Prior to the
FMLA, the United States had no national federal family or medical leave statute. There was,
therefore, no general legal requirement to provide job-protected leave. 2 Worksites could,
nevertheless, offer leave, and the 1995 surveys found that more than 30% provided policies
comparable to the FMLA voluntarily prior to the Act (U.S. DOL, 1996). Employees at worksites with
no such policies in place could be fired for taking leave for childbirth or their own or family medical
issues. In this regard, the United States differed from most other developed countries, which did
2
There were some restrictions. The Pregnancy Discrimination Act (42 U.S.C § 2000e et. seq., 1978)
required (and still requires) worksites to provide disability leave or unpaid leave to pregnant employees if
they would do so for other temporarily disabled employees. In addition, collective bargaining agreements
frequently include provisions related to worksites’ leave policies.
Abt Associates Inc.
▌pg. 1
Family and Medical Leave in 2012: Final Report
provide a right to job reinstatement (what we will call “job-protected leave”)—and often paid leave—
for childbirth and for personal and family medical issues (Ruhm, 1998; Moss and Deven, 1999;
OECD, 2010a, 2010b).
Some states adopted maternity leave statutes during the 1990s (see Waldfogel, 1999). These statutes
gave new mothers a right to job reinstatement after leave for maternity. Length of leave and coverage
varied by state. In addition, some states provided paid leave through state temporary disability
insurance programs.
In 1993, the United States enacted the federal FMLA3 guaranteeing eligible employees up to 12
workweeks per year of job-protected, but unpaid, leave. We defer until Chapter 2 of this report a
detailed discussion of the coverage and eligibility provisions of the legislation. Here, we note that
eligibility for the protection of the FMLA is far from universal: based on the 2012 surveys, we
estimate that only about 59% of all US workers are eligible for benefits (see Section 2.2).
1.1.1
Changes in FMLA Policy since FMLA’s Inception
Since being signed into law, the FMLA has been subject to a number of regulatory changes as well as
formal efforts to gather feedback on its implementation:
•
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), issued March 10, 1993 (58 FR 13394), inviting
comments until March 31, 1993. Followed by interim final rule on June 4, 1993 (58 FR 31794),
effective August 5, 1993, which also invited further public comment on the interim regulations.
Final regulations published January 6, 1995 (60 FR 2180), with minor technical corrections on
February 3, 1995 (60 FR 6658) and on March 30, 1995 (60 FR 16382); effective April 6, 1995.
These were the initial regulations implementing the 1993 legislation.
•
Request for Information (RFI), published December 1, 2006, (71 FR 69504) requested comment
from the public on its experiences with the FMLA and the Department’s administration of it and
corresponding summary, “Report on the comments received in response to the Department’s
RFI” published June 2007 (72 FR 35550). In what follows, we refer to this as the “2007 Report
on the RFI.”
•
Section 585(a), the National Defense Authorization Act for FY 2008 (NDAA), Public Law 110–
181, enacted January 28, 2008, expanded the FMLA to provide two types of military family
leave: (i) up to 12 workweeks of job-protected leave for any “qualifying exigency” arising out of
the active duty or call to active duty status of a spouse, son, daughter, or parent; and (ii) up to 26
workweeks of job-protected leave in a “single 12-month period” to care for a covered service
member with a serious injury or illness. These two types of FMLA leave are known as military
family leave.
3
The Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993, Public Law 103–3, 107 Stat. 6 (29 U.S.C. 2601 et seq.),
enacted on February 5, 1993, effective for most covered worksites on August 5, 1993. The FMLA was
subsequently amended to provide leave for military families in certain situations, including guaranteeing 26
weeks of leave for care of a covered service member.
Abt Associates Inc.
▌pg. 2
Family and Medical Leave in 2012: Final Report
•
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking published in the Federal Register February 11, 2008 (73 FR
7876). 4 Revised Final Rule published November 17, 2008 (73 FR 67934). Major areas of change
included implementing the military family leave provisions, permitting employers to contact
health care providers to verify and authenticate medical certifications of the need for leave
without first obtaining the employee’s permission or going through their own health care provider
to do so, and changes to the employer and employee notices concerning leave, fitness-for-duty
requirements, and rules concerning the substitution of accrued paid leave to cover unpaid periods
of FMLA leave taken. In what follows, we refer to this as “2008 Revised Regulations.” Section
565 of the 2010 NDAA, Public Law 111-84, enacted on October 28, 2009, further expands
military family leave for “qualifying exigency” leave to eligible employees with covered family
members in the Regular Armed Forces and coverage for “military caregiver leave” to eligible
employees who are the spouse, son, daughter, parent, or next of kin of certain veterans with a
“serious injury or illness.”
•
The Airline Flight Crew Technical Corrections Act (“AFCTCA”), Public Law 111-119, enacted
on December 21, 2009, modifies the FMLA hours of service eligibility requirement for flight
crew members and flight attendants.
•
Section 565(a) of the National Defense Authorization Act for FY 2010, Public Law 111–84,
enacted October 28, 2009, further amended the military family leave provisions. The FY 2010
NDAA amendments extended the qualifying exigency leave provisions to include family
members of members of the Regular Armed Forces and added a foreign deployment requirement.
The FY 2010 NDAA also amended the requirements for leave to care for a covered service
member with a serious injury or illness to include an injury or illness that existed prior to service
but that was aggravated in the line of duty on active duty, and to include leave to care for certain
veterans.
•
The Wage and Hour Division Administrator Interpretation FMLA 2010-3 (June 22, 2010)
clarifying the definition of "son and daughter" under the Family and Medical Leave Act to ensure
that an employee who assumes the role of caring for a child receives parental rights to family
leave regardless of the legal or biological relationship.
•
Notice of Proposed Rule Making relating to leave for military family members and flight crews,
published in the Federal Register February 15, 2012 (77 FR 8960).
Selected parts of Chapters 3, 4, 5, and 7 give additional detail on these statutory regulatory changes
and report survey-based tabulations related to the changes.
1.1.2
Proposed Changes to the FMLA
Beyond these statutory and regulatory changes that have been enacted and implemented, family and
medical leave continues to be an active area of policy discussion. Two changes have been the subject
of considerable discussion. First, the FMLA currently covers only workers in worksites with 50 or
more employees working for 20 or more calendar workweeks in the current or preceding calendar
4
Comments available at:
http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main?main=DocketDetail&d=ESA-2008-0001.
Abt Associates Inc.
▌pg. 3
Family and Medical Leave in 2012: Final Report
year. In 2008, there was a presidential initiative to extend the FMLA to worksites with 25 or more
employees (see Change.gov: The Office of the President Elect, 2008). Legislation consistent with that
proposal has been introduced, but has not been enacted (see “Family and Medical Leave
Enhancement Act of 2009,” HR 825, Maloney; “Family and Medical Leave Enhancement Act of
2011,” HR 1440).
Second, the leave provided by the federal FMLA is currently unpaid. Following the lead of California
and New Jersey, which have paid leave programs, the president’s proposed FY2012 budget included
$23 million to create a State Paid Leave Fund that would “provide grants to assist additional states to
establish paid leave programs” (U.S. DOL, 2011). However, that provision was not included in the
final enacted budget. Legislation has been introduced, but not enacted, to mandate such programs
(e.g., “Family Leave Insurance Act of 2011,” HR 2346, Woolsey).
1.2
The 2012 Surveys
This report presents results from a pair of surveys—of worksites and of employees—conducted
between February and June of 2012. These surveys are the third pair of research surveys that have
been conducted since the passage of the FMLA. The first pair of surveys was fielded in 1995 by the
University of Michigan’s Institute for Social Research (the Employee Survey) and Westat (the
Employer Survey 5) for the bipartisan Commission on Family and Medical Leave. The Commission’s
Executive Director and BLS staff prepared a detailed report on the findings from these two surveys,
as well as recommendations from the Commissioners, in A Workplace Balance: Report to Congress
on Family and Medical Leave Policies (U.S. DOL, 1996). The second pair of surveys was fielded in
2000 by Westat for DOL (Cantor et al., 2001).
While only 5 years passed between the fielding of the first two surveys, 12 years passed before the
2012 surveys reported in this study. In that time, labor markets have continued to evolve, including an
increase in women in the workforce, an aging workforce and population, declines in unionization, and
changes in the distribution of employment across sectors.
Most significantly, starting in 2007, the U.S. has experienced a major economic recession,
characterized as the most significant economic downturn since the Great Depression. That economic
downturn has affected wages and benefits. The two prior pairs of surveys were conducted in a very
different macroeconomic context. 6 When the first pair of surveys was fielded in calendar year 1995,
the unemployment rate was 5.6%; when the second pair of surveys was fielded in calendar year 2000,
the unemployment rate was 4.0%. The 2012 surveys were fielded when the unemployment rate was
over 8.0%, more than double what it was when the last pair of surveys was fielded.
5
For the 2012 and earlier surveys, the “Worksite Survey” is sometimes referred to as an “Employer Survey”
or “Establishment Survey.” Worksite is more precise; the questions refer to employees at this worksite, not
at all worksites for this employer. Furthermore, using “Worksite Survey” avoids confusing the “Employer
Survey” with the “Employee Survey.”
6
These raw monthly unemployment rates are drawn from data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000. The 1995
and 2000 rates are simple averages of the 12 monthly values. The 2012 value is for January through May
(the most recent available data as of this writing).
Abt Associates Inc.
▌pg. 4
Family and Medical Leave in 2012: Final Report
Furthermore, as noted above, the FMLA statute has been amended and additional changes to the
statute and regulations have been suggested. The 2012 surveys provide policymakers and researchers
with the current data with which to analyze the FMLA within the context of this evolving economic,
labor market, and regulatory landscape.
1.2.1
2012 Employee Survey
The 2012 Employee Survey was conducted by random-digit dial (RDD) using computer-assisted
telephone interviewing (CATI), calling landlines and cell phones. Between February 1 and June 24,
2012, Abt dialed 260,463 telephone numbers, of which 95,461 were valid, seeking participants in the
survey. The final sample includes 2,852 completed interviews.
The data collection plan involved interviewing (up to) one employee per household (excluding the
self-employed). Within households, the survey oversampled “leave takers” and “employees with
unmet need for leave.” The sample can be divided into four groups, those who:
•
Took leave (“leave takers”; 1,133 completed interviews, 39.7% of completed interviews, 16.3%
of the weighted sample). 7
•
Needed but did not take leave (“employees with unmet need for leave”; 219 completed
interviews, 7.7% of completed interviews, 3.5% of the weighted sample).
•
Both took leave and needed but did not take leave (“both leave takers and employees with unmet
need for leave”; 199 completed interviews, 7.0% of completed interviews, 3.1% of the weighted
sample).
•
Neither took nor needed to take leave (“employed only”; 1,301 completed interviews, 45.6% of
completed interviews, 77.2% of the weighted sample).
Leave takers are discussed in Chapters 4 and 5; employees who needed but did not take leave are
discussed in Chapter 6. 8
Unless explicitly noted otherwise, for this report, we use a definition of “leave” that aligns with the
types of leave covered by the FMLA statute:
•
to care for a newborn, newly adopted or new foster child (both maternity and paternity leave);
•
for employee’s own serious health condition or to care for a serious health condition of a parent,
child,9 or spouse;
7
Leave takers are both male and female. We show in Chapter 4 that most leave takers are female. Thus, we
sometimes use the feminine pronoun to refer to leave takers and employees with unmet need for leave.
Unless we specifically note otherwise, those references should be taken as including male leave takers as
well.
8
The 199 “both leave takers and employees with unmet need for leave” are included in the analyses for both
leave takers and employees who needed but did not take leave.
9
Note that an employee’s son or daughter age 18 or older is not considered a child under the FMLA unless
the child is unable to provide self-care due to a physical or mental disability (U.S. DOL, 2013a).
Abt Associates Inc.
▌pg. 5
Family and Medical Leave in 2012: Final Report
•
for pregnancy-related reasons;
•
to care for a covered service member with a serious injury or illness; or
•
for reasons related to the deployment of a military service member.
We use this definition when asking about all “leave,” whether or not the individual or the particular
leave was covered by or eligible for the FMLA.
We developed and use sampling weights to account for within-household sampling, as well as our
mixed mode (landline and cell phone) design and survey non-response. See Chapter 1 of the
Methodology Report for details of the sampling plan.
As appropriate, the body of the report provides tabulations of the results for:
•
all employees;
•
those who took leave or those with an unmet need for leave;
•
those who were eligible for the protections of the FMLA and those who were not.
When stratified results are reported, the reader should keep in mind that with only a few exceptions,
the estimates are not precise enough to establish that any difference between groups is not simply due
to chance.
1.2.2
Characteristics of the Employee Sample
Exhibits 1.2.1, 1.2.2, and 1.2.3 tabulate the demographic characteristics of the sample. Where
available in the 2000 public report, the table also includes comparable estimates from the 2000
survey. We note that our weighting procedure forces the distributions of gender, age, education,
race/ethnicity, region, and phone service to align with national control totals on employees from the
Current Population Survey (CPS). See Chapter 1 of the Methodology Report for details on the
weighting procedure.
Abt Associates Inc.
▌pg. 6
Family and Medical Leave in 2012: Final Report
Exhibit 1.2.1 Demographic Information on Employee Survey respondents
Female
Characteristics
Education:
Less than high school graduate
High school graduate
Some college
College graduate
Graduate school
Don’t know/refused
Percent Hispanic
Race:
Caucasian
African American
Asian
Pacific Islander
Native American
Other
Don’t know/refused
Marital status:
Married*
Living with a partner
Separated**
Divorced
2000
% [95% CI]
48.7
[46.3-51.1]
2012
% [95% CI]
49.1
[46.3-51.8]
5.2
[3.7-6.7]
29.6
[26.4-32.8]
28.6
[26-31.2]
25.5
[23.8-28.6]
11.1
[9.2-13.0]
N/A
7.6
[5.6-9.5]
28.7
[25.7-31.8]
29.7
[26.6-32.7]
21.8
[19.8-23.9]
11.7
[10.1-13.2]
0.6
[0.1-1.0]
14.0
[11.7-16.2]
7.2
[9.8-12.4]
77.9
[75.5-80.3]
9.6
[7.8-11.4]
2.8
[1.8-3.8]
N/A
N/A
2.6
[1.5-3.7]
N/A
67.2
[64.4-70.0]
10.5
[8.7-12.3]
Widowed
Single
Don’t know/refused
Partner living outside home
Abt Associates Inc.
22.3
[19.9-24.7]
N/A
N/A
73.4
[71.0-75.7]
12.1
[10.2-14.1]
3.1
[2.1-4.1]
0.9
[0.3-1.4]
2.7
[1.8-3.6]
9.2
[7.5-10.9]
1.6
[0.9-2.3]
53.2
[50.4-56.1]
7.9
[6.3-9.5]
2.6
[1.9-3.3]
9.8
[8.0-11.5]
2.1
[1.5-2.7]
22.7
[20.1-25.2]
1.8
[0.9-2.7]
14.9
[12.0-17.8]
▌pg. 7
Family and Medical Leave in 2012: Final Report
Region:
Northeast
Characteristics
2000
% [95% CI]
N/A
South
N/A
Midwest
N/A
West
N/A
Don’t know/refused
N/A
Average age
N/A
2012
% [95% CI]
17.7
[15.6-19.8]
33.6
[30.5-36.7]
21.1
[18.8-23.3]
20.4
[17.8-23.1]
7.2
[5.6-8.8]
Average
[95% CI]
41.5
[40.6-42.3]
2,852
Unweighted N
2,558
* The 2000 Report reflects married/living with partner.
** The 2000 Report reflects separated/divorced/widowed.
Source: 2012 Employee Survey D1, D5, D6, D10, D11, ZIP; 2000 Report Table A2-2.4.
Cells with “N/A” indicate that the data were not reported in the 2000 Report.
2012 Sample: Asked of all employees. Note: Region is coded from employee responses on ZIP code. Some
respondents refused to provide their ZIP code.
Abt Associates Inc.
▌pg. 8
Family and Medical Leave in 2012: Final Report
Exhibit 1.2.2 Household composition of Employee Survey respondents
2000
% [95% CI]
Household composition
Number of children under 18 in respondent's care:
0
2
59.5
[57.0-62.0]
40.5
[38.0-43.0]
N/A
3
N/A
4 or more
N/A
Don’t know/refused
N/A
1
Number of adults over 65 in respondent's care:
0
N/A
1
N/A
2
N/A
3
N/A
4 or more
N/A
Don’t know/refused
N/A
Number of members in household
N/A
Unweighted N
Source: 2012 Employee Survey D7, D8; 2000 Report Table A2-2.4.
Cells with “N/A” indicate that the data were not reported in the 2000 Report.
2012 Sample: Asked of all employees.
2,558
2012
% [95% CI]
56.5
[53.4-59.6]
17.7
[15.5-20.0]
15.2
[13.2-17.2]
6.7
[5.3-8.2]
2.7
[1.8-3.6]
1.2
[0.6-1.8]
91.2
[89.8-92.6]
5.6
[4.6-6.6]
1.9
[1.1-2.7]
0.2
[-0.0-0.3]
0.1
[-0.0-0.1]
1.0
[0.5-1.6]
Average
[95% CI]
2.9
[2.8-3.0]
2,852
Exhibit 1.2.3 Economic background of Employee Survey respondents
2000
Economic characteristics
Family income:
Under $5,000
$5,000- $20,000*
% [95% CI]
N/A
$30,000- $35,000
16.2
[13.9-18.5]
13.7
[11.3-16.1]
N/A
$35,000- $40,000
N/A
$20,000- $30,000
$40,000- $50,000**
Abt Associates Inc.
25.0
[22.4-27.6]
2012
% [95% CI]
0.6
[0.2-1.0]
5.4
[4.0-6.7]
11.0
[9.0-13.0]
6.1
[4.5-7.7]
7.5
[5.6-9.5]
8.5
[6.4-10.6]
▌pg. 9
Family and Medical Leave in 2012: Final Report
2000
Economic characteristics
$50,000- $75,000
$75,000- $100,000
$100,000 or more
Don’t know/refused
Government employee:
Federal
% [95% CI]
23.1
[20.2-26]
12.1
[10.1-14.1]
10.0
[8.3-11.7]
N/A
N/A
State
N/A
Local
N/A
Not a government employee
N/A
Don’t know/refused
N/A
Percent union member
N/A
Currently employed
N/A
Contract worker
N/A
How respondent is paid:
Salaried
Hourly
Piece work
Other/combined
Don’t know/refused
37.3
[34.8-39.8]
51.4
[49.1-53.7]
N/A
11.3
[9.4-13.2]
N/A
Unweighted N
2,558
* The 2000 Report reflects less than $20,000.
** The 2000 Report reflects $30,000 to less than $50,000.
Source: 2012 Employee Survey D2, D3, D4a-j, E1, E9, E10; 2000 Report Table A2-2.4.
Cells with “N/A” indicate that the data were not reported in the 2000 Report.
2012 Sample: Asked of all employees.
Abt Associates Inc.
2012
% [95% CI]
15.3
[13.1-17.5]
10.4
[8.9-11.9]
20.6
[18.4-22.9]
14.7
[12.2-17.1]
5.2
[3.9-6.5]
5.7
[4.6-6.9]
5.8
[4.5-7.1]
82.3
[80.2-84.4]
1.0
[0.4-1.5]
14.4
[12.2-16.6]
88.4
[86.3-90.4]
9.0
[7.0-10.9]
34.6
[31.8-37.3]
59.4
[56.6-62.2]
2.1
[1.1-3.1]
4.4
[2.8-5.9]
0.2
[-0.0-0.5]
2,852
▌pg. 10
Family and Medical Leave in 2012: Final Report
1.2.3
2012 Worksite Survey
The sampling frame for the Worksite Survey is the 2012 Dun’s Market Identifiers (DMI) file. In the
terminology of the DMI, we included all branch locations as units eligible to be sampled. Following
DOL, in this report we refer to such branch locations as “worksites.” Thus, a business entity
(hereafter a “firm”) may have multiple worksites.
The frame was not restricted to headquarters locations (that is, the sample unit is a worksite). The
final sample excluded self-employed respondents without employees, government and quasigovernment units (federal, state, and local governments, public educational institutions, and post
offices). Within worksites, we tried to interview the individual who would be most knowledgeable
about employee benefits and FMLA issues. See Chapter 2 of the Methodology Report for more
details.
For the Worksite Survey, we defined sampling strata by the cross-classification of seven employment
size classes and four industry groups. Since we survey worksites to learn about the experiences of
employees, worksites with more employees were oversampled. We developed and use sampling
weights to account for differential sampling rates across strata and survey non-response. Final
weights also adjust for differential non-response. See Chapter 2 of the Methodology Report for more
detail on the sampling methodology, sampling plan, and response rates. For most of the tabulations
below, we report two sets of results: (i) giving each worksite equal weight (“weighted by worksite”);
and (ii) weighting each worksite by the number of employees at the worksite (“weighted by
employees at worksite”). Results using the first weight characterize the experience of worksites;
results using the second weight characterize the experience of employees. For most purposes,
weighting by employees in the worksite is more appropriate. Our discussion focuses on results using
those weights.
Between March 12 and June 15, 2012, 6,873 worksites were contacted to participate in the survey.
Sampled worksites were given the option of responding via phone (interview conducted with live
interviewer using CATI) or via the web. The final sample includes 1,812 completed interviews: 1,178
(65%) completed via phone and 634 (35%) completed via the web.
As appropriate, the body of the report provides tabulations of the results for:
•
all worksites;
•
worksites that self-report that they are covered by the FMLA (only worksites that self-reported
that they were covered were asked the detailed questions about implementation of and effect of
the FMLA); and
•
covered worksites that have 50 employees within 75 miles. When this 50 employees within 75
miles condition is not met, no employee at the worksite will be eligible for the protections of the
FMLA. It follows that for most purposes, the FMLA does not apply to that worksite. 10
10
The issues related to coverage and eligibility are complicated. We discuss the details in Chapter 2 and
provide tabulations. Here we note that in operationalizing “worksites with eligible employees,” we require
only 50 employees within 75 miles of this worksite. It is possible that a worksite that meets this
Abt Associates Inc.
▌pg. 11
Family and Medical Leave in 2012: Final Report
In the body of the report, we refer to this last group as “50/75 worksites.” When considering how the
FMLA affects worksites, these 50/75 worksites are usually the most relevant. Therefore, unless
otherwise noted, when we discuss results from the Worksite Survey in the text, we discuss results for
covered worksites that are large enough to have eligible employees (i.e., “50/75 worksites”), weighted
by the number of employees at the worksite (not weighted by worksite). Thus, these results
correspond roughly to tabulations of eligible employees from the Employee Survey. 11
Again, when we report stratified results, the reader should keep in mind that with only a few
exceptions, the estimates are not precise enough to establish that any difference between groups is not
simply due to chance.
1.2.4
Characteristics of the Worksite Sample
Exhibit 1.2.4 presents background information on the worksites in the Worksite Survey, weighted by
both the number of employees at the worksite and worksites. Where available in the public report, the
table also includes comparable estimates from the 1995 and 2000 surveys, weighted by worksites.
requirement nevertheless has no employees who also meet the tenure and minimum hours requirements.
Also, note that while the coverage definition is based on self-report; this imputation of any eligible
employees is based on reported number of employees. The alignment between self-reports of coverage and
reports of numbers of employees at all worksites is imperfect.
11
The correspondence is not exact. The Employee Survey includes government employees; the Worksite
Survey does not include government worksites. The weighting is by all employees at the worksite, not just
by those who are eligible. Worksites are likely to vary in the fraction of their workers who meet the other
eligibility criteria (job tenure and hours worked in the last year).
Abt Associates Inc.
▌pg. 12
Family and Medical Leave in 2012: Final Report
Exhibit 1.2.4 Description of worksites in sample
Worksite characteristics
Industry:
Manufacturing
Retail
Service
Other
All worksites,
weighted by number
of employees
% [95% CI]
12.2
[-23.5-47.9]
25.2
[-36.2-86.6]
19.3
[-160.1-198.6]
43.3
[-110.4-197.0]
Percent of employees who worked at organization for at
least one year
78.3
[-24.7-181.3]
Of employees who have worked at organization for at
least one year, percentage who have worked at least
1,250 hours in the past year
Unionization
65.7
[26.3-105.1]
Female
Census region:
Northeast
South
Midwest
West
1.9
[0.3-3.5]
47.9
[45.3-50.5]
18.8
[15.6-22.0]
34.1
[25.3-42.9]
23.5
[-31.6-78.5]
23.6
[-39.9-87.1]
18.8
[15.6-22.0]
33.7
[29.8-37.6]
20.3
[16.9-23.7]
27.2
[20.9-33.4]
4590.7
[-74044.5-83225.9]
Unweighted N
1,812
Source: Worksite Survey Q1, Q4, Q6, Q7, Q8, Q9 Q10, Screener.
Sample: Asked of all worksites.
Abt Associates Inc.
14.2
[11.4-17.0]
21.7
[17.3-26.2]
29.4
[24.5-34.3]
34.7
[31.2-38.2]
84.1
[81.6-86.7]
63.5
[60.4-66.5]
9.5
[-126.0-145.1]
48.7
[33.3-64.2]
Average
[95% CI]
Number of employees at entire organization
All worksites,
weighted by worksite
% [95% CI]
Average
[95% CI]
145.1
[59.2-231.0]
1,812
▌pg. 13
Family and Medical Leave in 2012: Final Report
1.2.5
Changes in the Survey Focus from 2000
As much as possible, the 2012 surveys followed the model implemented in 2000. That strategy
preserves comparability, allowing analyses of changes over time. Nevertheless, despite efforts to
maximize comparability, the final 2012 surveys differ substantially from the 2000 surveys in several
ways.
First, the 2012 surveys have changed to reflect the evolving policy context. Unlike the 2000
Employee Survey, the screener for the 2012 Employee Survey and then questions in the body of the
survey carefully distinguish between longer leave for acute medical conditions and shorter—often
unanticipated—leave for chronic conditions (what is referred to in the FMLA statute as “intermittent
leave”). As appropriate in this report, we compare and contrast those two types of leave.
Second, to capture recent or pending statutory or regulatory changes (discussed above), new questions
have also been added to both 2012 surveys. Given concerns about respondent burden and response
rates, expanded areas of inquiry had to be offset by reductions in other areas. To this end, we have
dropped questions that are currently less relevant than they were in 2000 or those that did not generate
particularly rich insights in previous analyses and reports. These include questions from the 2000
Worksite Survey that asked about benefits offered by worksites, how long worksites have been
covered by the FMLA, and effect of the FMLA on different aspects of the worksite. (See Chapter 3 of
the Methodology Report for a detailed list of questions that were dropped, added, and modified.)
Third, as we discuss in detail in the introduction to Chapter 4, we shifted the reference period from
the past 18 months to the past 12 months and the reference leave from the longest leave (in the past
18 months) to the most recent leave (in the past 12 months).
Thus, while comparability over time was a design goal, in some areas the changes are non-trivial.
Chapter 3 of the Methodology Report presents changes in the two surveys in more detail and how
those changes might affect comparability over time. Given these changes, comparisons of results over
time should be interpreted with caution.
1.3
Notes on Discussion and Language
Throughout this document, we discuss issues related to the FMLA statute and regulations. Our
discussions are intended as high-order summaries. For rhetorical clarity, our discussions often delete
what are—for the purposes of this report— non-relevant details or caveats. No statement in this
document should be taken as stating official interpretation of the statute or regulations; nor should any
statement in this document be taken as stating official DOL policy. Those desiring information on the
statute and regulations should consult the appropriate legal documents. 12
We use “worker” and “employee” interchangeably throughout the report. With regard to findings
from the Worksite Survey, we distinguish between the “worksite” that responded to the survey versus
all of the firm’s sites as appropriate.
12
See Section 1.1 above and the DOL/WHD FMLA website at http://www.dol.gov/dol/topic/benefitsleave/fmla.htm and http://www.dol.gov/whd/fmla/index.htm#Forms.
Abt Associates Inc.
▌pg. 14
Family and Medical Leave in 2012: Final Report
The “findings” of the original FMLA statute state: “due to the nature of the roles of men and women
in our society, the primary responsibility for family caretaking often falls on women, and such
responsibility affects the working lives of women more than it affects the working lives of men”
(Public Law 103-3 § 2(5)). Consistent with this statutory language, the Employee Survey results
reported in Chapter 4 imply that leave is more common among females. Consistent with that pattern,
we sometimes use the female pronoun (i.e., “she” or “her”) to refer to those taking or needing leave.
Unless explicitly noted otherwise, such references should be taken to refer to men taking (or needing)
leave as well.
Throughout, we report not only point estimates, but also the 95% confidence interval (hereafter,
simply “CI”). In 95% of samples, the true answer will fall within this range.
Where possible, we compare results across the 1995, 2000, and 2012 surveys. Those comparisons
should be interpreted with care. As noted in Section 1.1, many things have changed. The FMLA is no
longer new; the statute and regulations have changed; the labor market continues to evolve; and the
unemployment rate was considerably higher in 2012 than it had been at earlier surveys. Furthermore,
as discussed in Chapter 4, the reference period differed between the 2000 and 2012 surveys, limiting
the ability to make some comparisons.
In the text, we discuss only differences for which we can reject chance as the explanation (at the 5%
level). Those standard errors apply to a test taken alone. Multiple comparison considerations imply
that, even if there was no true difference, we would expect some differences based solely on chance.
Furthermore, even when the results are precise enough, they should be interpreted with care. In
particular, many analyses of the Worksite Survey compare results for covered worksites to results for
uncovered worksites. Similarly, many analyses of the Employee Survey compare results for eligible
employees to results for ineligible employees. Any differences are likely to be due to some
combination of:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
the causal impact of coverage and eligibility;
the pure effect of firm and worksite size, and differences they induce in the industry and
type of employees—such that the differences would be present even in the absence of the
FMLA; and
chance.
Thus, in general, it is not appropriate to interpret differences as the causal impact of the FMLA.
Beyond the subgroups noted in Section 1.2.1 and Section 1.2.3, the survey is not large enough to
detect all but the very largest differences between subgroups. Concerns about the precision of
disaggregated estimates are particularly salient when the data are unbalanced across the subgroups
(e.g., when there are more than two subgroups or when the fraction of the population in each group
deviates from approximately half in each group). We report some limited tabulations by other
subgroups in the body of the report and others in the Detailed Results Appendix. Given the small
sample sizes and the large number of subgroup analyses, those results should be interpreted with
considerable caution.
In particular, while there are reasons to expect differences across states (e.g., paid leave statutes,
demographic characteristics, and economic conditions), sample sizes are simply not sufficient to
support such analyses. After explicit discussion with DOL, we decided not to focus on those issues
Abt Associates Inc.
▌pg. 15
Family and Medical Leave in 2012: Final Report
and not to report tabulations by states or groups of states. Furthermore, considerations of respondent
confidentiality require that no geographic information (i.e., state of residence or Census Region) be
included in the Public Use File (PUF).
1.4
Structure of this Report
The balance of this report attempts to integrate results from the Worksite Survey and the Employee
Survey. Specifically, Chapter 2 presents results on worksite coverage and worker eligibility for the
FMLA, as well as information related to employees’ knowledge of the FMLA. Chapter 3 considers
issues related to worksites’ administration of the FMLA and other leave policies. Chapter 4 presents
information on leave taking. Chapter 5 presents aspects of leave specifically related to the FMLA,
and, in particular, areas of recent regulatory activity, including worksites’ medical (re)certification
and fitness-for-duty requirements. Chapter 6 presents findings on those who responded that they
needed leave, but did not take it. Chapter 7 considers several subpopulations of particular interest—
e.g., military families, and differences in leave taking and unmet need by gender. Chapter 8 presents
how worksites respond to employee leave and their perceptions of the effects of leave. The final
chapter poses the challenge of FMLA policy making, considers the implications of the survey results
for such policies, and discusses directions for future research.
This is one of several documents describing the results of this 2012 survey effort. Those documents
include the Executive Summary and two volumes. One appendix volume provides more-detailed
results (Pozniak, Olson, Wen, Daley, and Klerman, 2012). In particular, the Detailed Results
Appendix includes supplementary analyses for the Employee and Worksite Surveys. All documents
are available on the Department’s website (http://www.dol.gov/whd/fmla/survey).
Another volume presents additional information on the methods used. In particular, this Methodology
Report (Daley, Kennedy, Schalk, Pacer, Ackermann, Pozniak, and Klerman, 2012) discusses (i)
issues related to the design of the Employee and Worksite Surveys, including a crosswalk of
questions between the 2000 and 2012 surveys; (ii) issues related to weighting; (iii) results of the
incentive pilot; and (iv) results of the non-response follow-up analysis.
A final volume documents the Public Use File (PUF) (McGarry, Klerman, Daley, and Pozniak, 2012).
The PUF is available on the Department’s website
(http://www.dol.gov/asp/evaluation/fmla/FMLASurveys-PUFdocumentation.pdf).
Abt Associates Inc.
▌pg. 16
Family and Medical Leave in 2012: Final Report
2.
FMLA Coverage and Eligibility
The Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) is a federal entitlement offered to eligible employees of
covered firms (where “coverage” applies to all “employees” at all of the firm’s “worksites”). This
chapter presents two perspectives on information on the coverage and eligibility requirements for
applying the FMLA. Section 2.1 tabulates firm coverage from the Worksite Survey, while Section 2.2
tabulates employee eligibility from the Employee Survey. Section 2.3 describes employee knowledge
of the FMLA’s provisions from the Employee Survey. Section 2.4 tabulates information on
qualifying reasons for job-protected leave. Finally, Section 2.5 presents information from worksite
responses on other terms of employment—increments for recording time, other benefits, and demerit
systems.
As noted in Chapter 1, unless otherwise noted, when discussing results from the Worksite Survey, we
focus on estimates weighted by the number of employees at the worksite (not weighted by worksite)
for 50/75 worksites (i.e., worksites that have 50 employees within 75 miles and are, therefore, large
enough to have eligible employees).
2.1
Covered Firms in the Sample
A private firm is covered by the FMLA if, across all of its worksites, it employs or has employed 50
or more employees in 20 or more workweeks in the current or preceding calendar year. 13 We have
two sources of information about FMLA coverage. First, the Worksite Survey asked directly whether
a worksite believes that it is covered. The Worksite Survey uses this response to determine which
worksites are asked FMLA-specific questions. Second, following the approach used in the 2000
survey, we also impute FMLA coverage if the worksite reports, that across all worksites, its parent
firm employed at least 50 employees. 14
Exhibit 2.1.1 reports both our imputed coverage and the worksites’ self-reported coverage.
Specifically, 16.6% of worksites self-report that the FMLA applies to them. In contrast, our
imputation implies much lower coverage rates; 9.7% of worksites are covered by the FMLA (i.e., 50
or more employees across all worksites for this employer). 15 Furthermore, over a quarter of all sites
(29.7%) are unsure if the FMLA applies to them.
13
All public agencies are covered by the FMLA. The 2012 Worksite Survey included only private sector
worksites. The 2012 Employee Survey included employees from both the private and public sector (Public
Law 103-3 § 101(2)(b)).
14
Our imputation does not consider the 20 or more workweeks requirement (§ 825.105 (e)). It was not
feasible to include that level of detail (i.e., more than the current number of employees) on a worksite
survey.
15
This estimate is also slightly lower than the estimates from the 1995 and 2000 surveys, which both reported
that 10.8% of worksites were covered (see Cantor et al., 2001; Table 3.1, p. 3-3). However, the estimates
are not comparable. Cantor et al. (2001) state: “For purposes of analysis in both the establishment and
employee surveys, an establishment was considered an FMLA-covered establishment if, at the time of the
survey, it had at least 50 or more [sic] employees working at locations within 75 miles. In the establishment
survey, multi-establishment employers with 50 or more employees beyond 75 miles (but less than 50 within
Abt Associates Inc.
▌pg. 17
Family and Medical Leave in 2012: Final Report
Among the worksites that self-report that they are covered, 55.7% report fewer than 50 employees
across all worksites (i.e., we would impute that they are not covered; not shown in Exhibit 2.1.1).
Conversely, among the worksites that self-report that they are not covered, only 2.9% report more
than 50 employees across all worksites (i.e., we would impute that they are covered; these are not
shown in Exhibit 2.1.1).
Exhibit 2.1.1 Worksites that are covered by FMLA
FMLA coverage
Self-reported coverage under the FMLA by worksites:
FMLA applies to worksite
FMLA does not apply to worksite
Not sure if FMLA applies
Don’t know/refused
Worksite’s imputed coverage under the FMLA:
50 employees at all of the organization’s worksite
Unweighted N
Source: Worksite Survey Q1, Q2, Q3, Q17.
Sample: Asked of all worksites.
All, weighted
by worksite
% [95% CI]
All, weighted
by employees
% [95% CI]
16.6
[10.5-22.7]
53.6
[48.1-59.1]
29.7
[23.7-35.7]
0.1
[-0.0-0.2]
9.7
[7.2-12.3]
1,812
70.4
[62.5-78.2]
16.2
[11.7-20.7]
13.3
[8.9-17.6]
0.2
[0.0-0.3]
68.2
[59.8-76.5]
As discussed above, many more sites—16.6% vs. 9.7%—report that they are covered than appears to
be the case based on our imputation. There are at least two reasons why self-reports of FMLA
coverage may diverge from our imputation. First, some worksites may misunderstand their coverage
status, either believing they are uncovered when they do meet the statutory requirement or believing
that they are covered when they do not. From the responses, the latter appears to be more common;
i.e., worksites are more likely to believe they are covered when they are not.
Second, our imputation is undoubtedly imperfect. In particular, some worksites may misunderstand or
misreport their firms’ count of employees across all worksites. In addition, as discussed above, our
coverage imputation does not impose the 20 calendar week’s condition on surveyed worksites
(although this error would increase the discrepancy, with even fewer worksites truly covered).
Similarly, the Worksite Survey asked about employees currently on the payroll whereas the statute
considers employment in any 20 weeks in the current or previous year. It seems unlikely that interyear variation in the employee count is a major cause of the discrepancy.
Finally, in considering these estimates (and other estimates based on the Worksite Survey), it is
crucial to remember that this is the percentage of worksites. The second column of Exhibit 2.1.1
75 miles) were not counted as covered, while some employers with a large number of seasonal employees
may also have been classified as being non-covered.” (p. 3-2 in Cantor et al., 2001). Consistent with
guidance from DOL, the definition of coverage used in this report does not impose the 50 employees within
75 miles requirement.
Abt Associates Inc.
▌pg. 18
Family and Medical Leave in 2012: Final Report
repeats that analysis weighting by employees. Doing so considerably shrinks the discrepancy.
Specifically, worksites’ self-reports of coverage status imply that 70.4% of employees are covered by
the FMLA (see first row of Exhibit 2.1.1); while our imputations based on worksite reports of total
firm employment imply that 68.2% of employees are covered by the FMLA (see penultimate row of
Exhibit 2.1.1). Put differently, the discrepancies are primarily in small worksites with few employees.
Exhibit 2.1.1 considers whether worksites are covered by the FMLA. As we noted in Chapter 1 and as
we discuss in detail later in this chapter and in later chapters, employees may only access the
protections of the FMLA if they meet specific eligibility criteria.. A necessary, but not sufficient,
condition for employee eligibility is that there be 50 employees of the firm at all worksites within 75
miles of the particular employee’s worksite (what we call “50/75 worksites”). When that condition is
not met, the protections of the FMLA do not apply to the employee.
Exhibit 2.1.2 considers how many worksites are large enough to have any eligible employees. To do
this analysis, we use worksite reports of the number of employees. 16 Using worksite reports of
employment (not self-reports of coverage), Exhibit 2.1.2 shows that 44.2% of worksites are covered
(34.6%+9.6%), but only 34.6% of worksites are large enough to have any eligible employees at the
site. The definitions of eligibility imply that larger worksites will be covered and have eligible
employees, and smaller worksites will not. We would thus expect that, compared to weighting each
worksite equally, weighting by employees would imply that more workers are at sites large enough to
have eligible employees (i.e., satisfying the criterion of 50 employees within 75 miles). Consistent
with that expectation, when weighting by employees and according to worksite reports of
employment (not self-reports of coverage), 91.5% (89.6%+1.9%) of employees are in covered
worksites and 89.6% of employees work at worksites large enough to have eligible employees. 17
16
The Worksite Survey did not ask worksites directly if they were large enough to have eligible employees.
Instead, this analysis imputes that status based on reports about number of employees. We have already
noted that using reported number of employees in the worksite leads to a lower estimate of coverage than
using worksites’ self-reports of coverage.
17
Note that this number is slightly higher than the corresponding estimate from the Employee Survey (see
Exhibit 2.2.1: 73.6% vs. 89.6%). The most likely reason for the discrepancy is employee misreporting of
the number of employees within 75 miles.
Abt Associates Inc.
▌pg. 19
Family and Medical Leave in 2012: Final Report
Exhibit 2.1.2 Self-reported covered worksites with 50 employees within 75 miles
Among self-reported covered worksites, percentage that have:
50 employees within 75 miles of the worksite
50 employees, but not within 75 miles of the worksite
Fewer than 50 employees at all worksites
Weighted by
worksite
% [95% CI]
34.6
[23.0-46.3]
9.6
[1.5-17.8]
55.7
[42.6-68.9]
Weighted by
employees at
worksite
% [95% CI]
89.6
[84.1-95.2]
1.9
[0.6-3.2]
8.5
[2.9-14.0]
988
Unweighted N
Source: Worksite Survey Q1, Q2, Q3, Q17.
Coverage imputation: 50 employees at all of the organization’s worksites, based on worksite reports of number of
employees in the firm overall and within 75 miles (not based on worksites’ self-reports of coverage).
Sample: Asked of all worksites.
2.2
Eligible Employees in the Sample
An employee is eligible for FMLA if he or she:
•
works for a covered employer (see Public Law 103-3, § 101(2)) has worked for that employer for
at least 12 months (which do not have to be consecutive);
•
has at least 1,250 hours of service over the past 12 months; and
•
works at a location with 50 or more employees at the location or within 75 miles of the
employee’s worksite.
The employee is then eligible to take leave for one of the following qualifying FMLA reasons (Public
Law 103-3 §102(a)):
•
Birth of the employee’s child, and care of the child within one year of birth.
•
Placement with the employee of a child for adoption or foster care, within one year of the
placement.
•
Care of an immediate family member (spouse, child, parent) who has a serious health condition.
•
For the employee’s own serious health condition that makes the employee unable to perform any
of the functions of his or her job.
•
For any qualifying exigency arising out of the fact that the employee’s spouse, son, daughter, or
parent is on covered active duty or has been notified of an impending call or order to covered
active duty in the U.S. Armed Forces.
•
To care for a covered service member with a serious injury or illness incurred or aggravated in
the line of duty. (Unlike other qualifying reasons, which allow up to 12 weeks of leave in each
leave year, this leave may be for up to 26 weeks in a single 12-month period.)
Exhibit 2.2.1 presents the estimated percentage of employees who are eligible for FMLA leave using
Employee Survey responses. This exhibit reports that:
•
73.6% of employees work at a worksite with 50 or more employees within 75 miles.
Abt Associates Inc.
▌pg. 20
Family and Medical Leave in 2012: Final Report
•
64.0% of employees work in covered FMLA worksites and have 12 months’ tenure. 18
•
59.2% of employees work in covered FMLA worksites and have worked continuously for the
past 12 months and worked at least 1,250 hours in the past 12 months (approximately 24 hours
per week). 19
That is, the imputation implies that 59.2% of employees are eligible for FMLA (see the penultimate
row of Exhibit 2.2.1).
We use this imputation of “eligible employees” in subsequent tables in the report that stratify some of
the responses to the Employee Survey. For several reasons, the imputation methodology may generate
imprecise estimates. One reason is survey response errors as to number of employees, length of
employment, and hours in the past year. Second, FMLA eligibility is imputed based on questions
referring to current employment, and some currently ineligible individuals (e.g., just changed jobs)
might have been eligible earlier in the reference period (e.g., on a previous job) and vice versa.
Considerations of survey length and fielding methods made it infeasible to collect sufficient detail to
better establish FMLA eligibility at all periods.
Exhibit 2.2.1 Estimation of number of current employees who are eligible for FMLA
Current employees
Percent of employees whose worksites have 50 or more employees within 75 miles
…and continuously worked for same worksite for 12 months
…and were always a full-time employee or worked at least 1,250 hours over the past
12 months (this is the percentage of employees who are eligible for FMLA)
Unweighted N
Source: Employee Survey E13, E14, E15.
Sample: Asked of all employees.
All employees
% [95 CI]
73.6
[70.6-76.6]
64.0
[61.0-67.0]
59.2
[56.3-62.1]
2,572
Exhibit 2.2.2 and Exhibit 2.2.3 consider the effect of varying the statutory eligibility requirements;
63.2% of employees would be eligible if the cutoff were lowered to 30 employees (within 75 miles),
or 66.6% with a 20-employee threshold (within 75 miles) 20 (Exhibit 2.2.2). Approximately 62.7% of
employees would be eligible if the minimum hours of service requirement was dropped to 780 hours
18
Because of concerns about respondent burden and following the question wording used in 2000, the survey
asked about 12 months of continuous employment with this employer. This does not align exactly with the
FMLA, which requires only 12 months’ total employment with this employer. Thus, our estimates are
slightly too low.
19
The FMLA Final Rule established special hours of service eligibility requirements for airline flight crew
employees. Airline flight crew employees, which include airline flight crewmembers and flight attendants,
meet FMLA eligibility requirements if they work at least 60% of the applicable total monthly guarantee
and have worked or been paid for at least 504 hours during the 12 months prior to taking leave (U.S. DOL,
2013b).
20
The Employee Survey reports only the number of employees in groups (1–9, 10–19, 20–29, 30–39, 40–49,
50–99, 100–249, 250–349, 350–499, 500 or more). Therefore, we report 20- and 30-employee thresholds
instead of 25 due to the response categories listed in E12.
Abt Associates Inc.
▌pg. 21
Family and Medical Leave in 2012: Final Report
(average of 15 hours per week); approximately 54.5% would be eligible if the minimum hours were
raised to 1,820 hours (average of 35 hours per week; see Exhibit 2.2.3). 21
Exhibit 2.2.2 Simulations of eligibility with minimum number of employees
Source: Employee Survey E13, E14, E15.
Sample: Asked of all employees.
21
The FMLA does not require a specific number of hours to be worked in any week for its eligibility criteria
to be met, i.e., an employee who works 10 hours in one week and 32 in others would be eligible in all
weeks if he had worked 1,250 hours in the 12 months prior to the leave. However, for ease of comparison,
we report these numbers as an average per week.
Abt Associates Inc.
▌pg. 22
Family and Medical Leave in 2012: Final Report
Exhibit 2.2.3 Simulations of eligibility with hours worked
Source: Employee Survey E13, E14, E15.
Sample: Asked of all employees.
2.3
Employees’ Knowledge and Awareness of FMLA
Employee knowledge and understanding of the FMLA is crucial to its use. The Employee Survey
included questions to examine workers’ knowledge and awareness of the FMLA. Since the fielding of
this survey, DOL has issued additional guidance in plain-language format geared to increasing
employees’ knowledge and understanding of the Act (see Need Time? The Employee’s Guide to the
Family and Medical Leave Act, and the associated webinar; U.S. DOL, 2012). Any changes in
knowledge and understanding due to those efforts will not be reflected in the survey responses.
Exhibit 2.3.1 indicates that 66.2% of all employees have heard of the FMLA. This rate is up from
59.1% in 2000 and 56.0% in 1995.
Abt Associates Inc.
▌pg. 23
Family and Medical Leave in 2012: Final Report
Exhibit 2.3.1 Employee awareness of FMLA
1995
survey
Employee awareness of FMLA
Have heard of the federal FMLA
How employee learned about FMLA:
Media
2000
survey
2012 survey
All
employees
% [95 CI]
56.0
[52.9-59.1]
All
employees
% [95 CI]
59.1
[56.3-61.9]
Employees
at covered
worksites
% [95 CI]
70.9
[67.1-74.6]
N/A
42.5
[38.9-46.1]
5.0
[3.4-6.6]
38.4
[34.9-41.9]
3.6
[2.2-5.0]
2.7
[1.5-3.9]
N/A
All
employees
% [95 CI]
66.2
[63.0-69.4]
Employees
at
uncovered
worksites
% [95 CI]
53.1
[47.1-59.2]
11.6
11.0
13.6
[10.0-13.3]
[9.1-12.8]
[10.1-17.1]
Coworker
N/A
3.1
3.8
1.1
[2.2-4.0]
[2.6-5.0]
[-0.0-2.2]
Employer or Human Resource
N/A
36.5
41.1
23.8
department
[33.7-39.4]
[37.7-44.5]
[19.3-28.4]
Saw a poster (includes notice
N/A
44.3
48.6
32.4
posted)
[41.0-47.6]
[44.9-52.3]
[26.0-38.9]
Family member
N/A
3.8
4.2
2.7
[2.7-4.9]
[2.8-5.5]
[1.1-4.3]
Friend or neighbor
N/A
1.8
1.8
1.7
[1.0-2.6]
[0.8-2.9]
[0.5-2.9]
Union
N/A
1.4
0.7
1.0
0.0
[0.6-2.2]
[0.4-1.1]
[0.5-1.5]
[-0.0-0.1]
Other
N/A
6.3
11.0
11.0
11.0
[4.7-7.9]
[9.1-12.9]
[8.7-13.3]
[7.6-14.4]
Don’t know/refused
N/A
N/A
1.7
1.4
2.7
[0.8-2.6]
[0.6-2.1]
[0.2-5.1]
Unweighted N
1,202
3,104
2,572
1,985
587
Source: 2012 Employee Survey E2, E3; 2000 Report Tables A1-3.4 and A1-6.2.
Columns may sum to >100% since respondent could select more than one category.
Last two columns disaggregate responses based on employees working at a covered or uncovered worksite
regardless of whether the employee is eligible.
Cells with “N/A” indicate that the data were not reported in the 2000 Report.
2012 Sample: Asked of all employees.
The last two columns of Exhibit 2.3.1 disaggregate these findings by whether the employee works at
a covered or uncovered worksite regardless of whether the employee is eligible for FMLA 22
(coverage status is based on our imputation from the employees’ responses as discussed in Section
2.2 above). Not surprisingly, more employees at covered worksites have heard of the FMLA than
those who work at uncovered worksites (70.9% vs. 53.1%).
The most common sources of knowledge are a poster or other posted notice and communication from
the worksite (including the Human Resources [HR] department), each with about 40% of employees.
As expected, this is more common among employees in covered than uncovered worksites (for
poster: 48.6% vs. 32.4%; for HR department: 41.1% vs. 23.8%).
22
We tabulate based on coverage rather than eligibility because worksites have an obligation to inform all
covered employees of the FMLA, regardless of their eligibility.
Abt Associates Inc.
▌pg. 24
Family and Medical Leave in 2012: Final Report
In addition, employees were asked whether the FMLA entitled covered employees to take leave for
11 possible reasons—8 of which are covered under the current FMLA statute, and 3 of which are not
(E4a): “To the best of your knowledge, are employees who are covered by the federal FMLA law
entitled to take leave for the following reasons?”). 23
Exhibit 2.3.2 tabulates responses to these knowledge questions. Most employees know the covered
reasons. However, most employees incorrectly believe that the FMLA provides protected leave for
the care of family members that FMLA does not actually cover (last three rows); that is, employees
appear to believe the FMLA is broader than it actually is. Knowledge of the military family leave
provisions is substantially lower than the other provisions—below 65% vs. knowledge of other
provisions, which is well above 75%. Like the previous results, the last two columns of Exhibit 2.3.2
disaggregate these findings by whether the employee works at a covered or uncovered worksite
regardless of whether the employee is eligible for FMLA; however, there are few statistically
significant differences.
23
The full list was too long to administer to every respondent, so each respondent was asked about 4 of the 11
reasons. The 4 reasons were randomly selected for each respondent with the following specifications:
•
•
•
1 of the 4 reasons was about leave related to military service members;
2 of the 4 reasons were for other covered reasons; and
1 of the 4 reasons was for leave that is not covered by the FMLA.
Additionally, the order in which the questions were asked was randomized.
Abt Associates Inc.
▌pg. 25
Family and Medical Leave in 2012: Final Report
Exhibit 2.3.2 Employee knowledge of what FMLA covers
Employees at
Employees at
All
covered worksites
uncovered worksites
Employee knowledge of FMLA
% [95% CI]
% [95% CI]
% [95% CI]
Percent of respondents who correctly answered that FMLA applies to the following covered reasons:
FMLA is available for the care of a newborn.
91.7
92.8
88.1
[86.2-97.3]
[88.5-97.1]
[76.1-100.1]
FMLA is available for an employee's own serious health condition.
88.7
90.5
80.5
[84.2-93.1]
[85.7-95.4]
[68.8-92.2]
FMLA is available for the care of a child with a serious health condition.
86.8
89.1
80.0
[82.2-91.4]
[84.9-93.4]
[66.7-93.3]
FMLA is available for the care of a spouse with a serious health condition.
85.8
86.5
82.8
[81.0-90.5]
[81.0-92.0]
[72.2-93.3]
FMLA is available for the care of a parent with a serious health condition.
83.1
83.5
81.9
[78.4-87.9]
[78.2-88.7]
[70.8-93.0]
FMLA is available for the care of an adopted child or foster child.
80.1
81.1
76.4
[74.3-85.9]
[75.2-86.9]
[63.8-89.1]
FMLA is available for the care of a military service member.
62.8
63.7
59.9
[57.8-67.8]
[58.0-69.5]
[48.9-70.9]
FMLA is available for reasons related to the deployment of a military service
59.8
59.6
60.5
member.
[55.1-64.5]
[54.4-64.8]
[49.2-71.8]
Percent of respondents who correctly answered that FMLA does not apply to the following reasons:
FMLA is available for the care of a grandparent with a serious health condition.
17.5
13.9
27.2
[12.5-22.4]
[8.9-18.9]
[11.6-42.7]
FMLA is available for the care of a grandchild with a serious health condition.
18.2
17.4
22.6
[13.7-22.8]
[12.5-22.2]
[8.3-36.8]
FMLA is available for the care of a sibling with a serious health condition.
16.6
15.9
19.3
[11.0-22.2]
[10.1-21.8]
[7.3-31.4]
Unweighted N
938
Source: Employee Survey E4a.
Last two columns disaggregate responses based on employees working at a covered or uncovered firm regardless of whether the employee is eligible.
Sample: Asked of all employees.
Abt Associates Inc.
▌pg. 26
Family and Medical Leave in 2012: Final Report
2.4
Qualifying Reasons for Leave
The FMLA provides job-protected leave for qualifying conditions (listed at the beginning of Section
2.2). Responses to the Worksite Survey suggest that the majority of worksites allow leave for all
FMLA-qualifying reasons (Exhibit 2.4.1a). Two-thirds (66.6%) of employees work at worksites that
allow leave for all of the qualifying FMLA reasons listed regardless of circumstances. As expected,
rates of allowing leave are higher in covered worksites than in uncovered worksites (69.5% vs. 59.6%
of employees work at these worksites, respectively). At least 79% of employees work at covered
worksites that report “allowing leave” for qualifying FMLA reasons, even excluding the “depends on
circumstances” response (which could be correct as the FMLA does have exclusions). Rates of
allowing leave are much lower in uncovered worksites, but still well over 60% for the qualifying
FMLA reasons listed. Differences are larger when weighting by worksites, rather than by the number
of employees at the worksite (Exhibit 2.4.1b).
Abt Associates Inc.
▌pg. 27
Family and Medical Leave in 2012: Final Report
Exhibit 2.4.1a Worksites that allow leave for a qualifying FMLA reason, weighted by employees at worksite
Worksites that allow leave for the
following qualifying FMLA reasons
For an employee's own serious health
condition
For a pregnancy-related reason
For the care of a newborn
For an adoption or foster care
placement
For the care of a child, spouse or
parent with a serious health condition
For care of a parent or spouse who is
elderly
For the care of a military service
member with a serious injury or
illness
For reasons related to the
deployment of a military service
member
Worksites that allow leave for any of
the above qualifying FMLA reasons
Worksites that allow leave for all of
the above qualifying FMLA reasons
Unweighted N
Abt Associates Inc.
All worksites, weighted by employees at worksite
Depends on
circumDoes not allow
Allows leave
stances
leave
DK
% [95% CI]
% [95% CI]
% [95% CI]
% [95% CI]
94.5
1.8
3.1
0.5
[92.6-96.3]
[1.2-2.5]
[1.8-4.5]
[0.2-0.9]
92.7
2.8
3.7
0.9
[90.7-94.7]
[2.2-3.4]
[2.3-5.0]
[0.3-1.5]
91.1
2.7
5.6
0.7
[87.6-94.5]
[2.0-3.5]
[2.8-8.4]
[0.3-1.0]
87.4
4.4
6.7
1.5
[83.6-91.2]
[3.2-5.6]
[3.7-9.7]
[0.8-2.2]
93.0
2.7
3.8
0.6
[91.1-94.8]
[1.9-3.5]
[2.5-5.1]
[0.2-1.0]
79.2
3.7
16.2
0.9
[68.9-89.6]
[2.1-5.3]
[5.9-26.5]
[0.4-1.3]
90.8
3.0
4.8
1.4
[88.0-93.6]
[2.1-4.0]
[3.0-6.6]
[0.8-1.9]
Uncovered worksites, weighted by employees at worksite
Depends on
circumDoes not allow
Allows leave
stances
leave
DK
% [95% CI]
% [95% CI]
% [95% CI]
% [95% CI]
84.8
5.4
8.1
1.7
[81.2-88.4]
[3.2-7.5]
[5.3-10.8]
[0.7-2.8]
80.3
8.4
8.8
2.5
[76.9-83.7]
[5.9-10.9]
[6.2-11.4]
[0.9-4.0]
75.9
8.3
13.7
2.1
[70.0-81.7]
[6.0-10.6]
[8.2-19.3]
[1.0-3.2]
65.3
13.0
17.4
4.4
[60.0-70.5]
[9.4-16.5]
[11.9-22.9]
[2.2-6.5]
81.0
8.2
8.9
1.9
[77.6-84.4]
[5.6-10.7]
[6.3-11.5]
[0.8-3.0]
78.0
8.1
11.6
2.3
[74.0-82.0]
[5.8-10.4]
[8.2-15.0]
[1.2-3.5]
75.8
8.7
11.5
4.0
[71.4-80.2]
[6.2-11.3]
[8.5-14.4]
[2.5-5.5]
84.3
[77.6-91.0]
3.7
[2.6-4.9]
8.7
[1.8-15.6]
3.3
[0.5-6.2]
73.6
[69.1-78.1]
10.0
[7.6-12.4]
11.4
[8.4-14.5]
4.9
[2.9-7.0]
96.2
[94.8-97.5]
66.6
[55.8-77.4]
6.9
[4.8-9.0]
N/A
25.0
[13.5-36.5]
N/A
N/A
89.1
[86.5-91.7]
59.6
[54.1-65.1]
16.7
[12.6-20.7]
N/A
24.8
[18.8-30.8]
N/A
N/A
1,812
N/A
N/A
824
▌pg. 28
Family and Medical Leave in 2012: Final Report
Worksites that allow leave for the
following qualifying FMLA reasons
For an employee's own serious health
condition
For a pregnancy-related reason
For the care of a newborn
Covered worksites, weighted by employees at worksite
Depends on
circumDoes not allow
Allows leave
stances
leave
DK
% [95% CI]
% [95% CI]
% [95% CI]
% [95% CI]
98.6
0.4
1.0
0.0
[97.6-99.5]
[-0.1-0.9]
[0.4-1.7]
[-0.0-0.1]
97.9
0.4
1.5
0.2
[96.7-99.1]
[-0.1-0.9]
[0.6-2.3]
[-0.0-0.4]
97.5
0.4
2.1
0.1
[96.1-98.8]
[-0.1-0.9]
[1.1-3.2]
[-0.0-0.1]
96.7
0.8
2.2
0.3
[95.2-98.1]
[0.1-1.5]
[1.2-3.2]
[0.1-0.6]
98.0
0.4
1.6
0.0
[96.8-99.1]
[-0.1-0.9]
[0.8-2.5]
[-0.0-0.1]
79.8
1.9
18.2
0.2
[65.3-94.2]
[-0.0-3.7]
[3.4-32.9]
[0.0-0.4]
97.1
0.6
2.0
0.3
[95.5-98.6]
[0.0-1.2]
[0.9-3.2]
[0.0-0.5]
50/75 worksites, weighted by employees at worksite
Depends on
circumDoes not allow
Allows leave
stances
leave
DK
% [95% CI]
% [95% CI]
% [95% CI]
% [95% CI]
99.2
0.1
0.7
0.0
[98.5-99.9]
[-0.1-0.2]
[0.0-1.3]
[-0.0-0.1]
98.7
0.1
1.2
0.1
[97.8-99.6]
[-0.0-0.2]
[0.3-2.0]
[-0.0-0.2]
98.4
0.1
1.5
0.1
[97.4-99.4]
[-0.1-0.2]
[0.5-2.5]
[-0.0-0.2]
97.9
0.4
1.4
0.3
[96.8-99.0]
[-0.1-0.8]
[0.5-2.2]
[0.1-0.6]
98.8
0.1
1.1
0.0
[98.0-99.6]
[-0.1-0.2]
[0.3-1.9]
[-0.0-0.1]
78.6
1.7
19.5
0.2
[62.2-95.0]
[-0.3-3.6]
[3.2-35.8]
[-0.0-0.4]
98.4
0.1
1.3
0.2
[97.4-99.3]
[-0.0-0.3]
[0.5-2.2]
[-0.0-0.4]
For an adoption or foster care
placement
For the care of a child, spouse or
parent with a serious health condition
For care of a parent or spouse who is
elderly
For the care of a military service
member with a serious injury or
illness
For reasons related to the
88.7
1.1
7.6
2.6
89.1
deployment of a military service
[78.8-98.6]
[0.2-1.9]
[-1.8-16.9]
[-1.2-6.5]
[78.2-100.0]
member
Worksites that allow leave for any of
99.1
2.8
25.1
N/A
99.6
the above qualifying FMLA reasons
[98.3-99.8]
[0.7-4.9]
[9.5-40.8]
[99.2-100.0]
Worksites that allow leave for all of
69.5
N/A
N/A
N/A
68.3
the above qualifying FMLA reasons
[54.4-84.5]
[51.4-85.2]
Unweighted N
988
Source: Worksite Survey Q16.
Sample: Asked of all worksites. Covered/Uncovered stratification reflects worksites’ self-reported coverage under the FMLA.
Abt Associates Inc.
0.6
[0.1-1.1]
7.5
[-2.8-17.8]
2.8
[-1.6-7.2]
2.3
[0.2-4.4]
N/A
26.5
[9.4-43.5]
N/A
N/A
N/A
808
▌pg. 29
Family and Medical Leave in 2012: Final Report
Exhibit 2.4.1b Worksites that allow leave for a qualifying FMLA reason, weighted by worksite
Worksites that allow leave for the
following qualifying FMLA reasons
For an employee's own serious health
condition
For a pregnancy-related reason
For the care of a newborn
For an adoption or foster care
placement
For the care of a child, spouse or
parent with a serious health condition
For care of a parent or spouse who is
elderly
For the care of a military service
member with a serious injury or
illness
For reasons related to the deployment
of a military service member
Worksites that allow leave for any of
the above qualifying FMLA reasons
Worksites that allow leave for all of
the above qualifying FMLA reasons
Unweighted N
Abt Associates Inc.
All worksites, weighted by worksite
Depends on
circumDoes not
Allows leave
stances
allow leave
DK
% [95% CI]
% [95% CI]
% [95% CI]
% [95% CI]
78.9
6.8
12.3
2.0
[74.1-83.7]
[4.1-9.5]
[9.0-15.7]
[0.6-3.4]
70.0
8.6
18.1
3.3
[65.2-74.8]
[5.0-12.2]
[14.2-22.1]
[1.3-5.3]
68.8
12.1
16.4
2.7
[63.1-74.5]
[7.6-16.7]
[13.0-19.8]
[1.1-4.2]
62.8
14.5
19.4
3.3
[58.5-67.1]
[10.0-18.9]
[15.8-23.0]
[2.0-4.6]
75.7
7.6
14.7
2.0
[71.7-79.8]
[5.4-9.7]
[11.2-18.2]
[0.7-3.4]
73.6
9.5
14.5
2.4
[68.4-78.8]
[6.2-12.8]
[10.8-18.1]
[0.9-4.0]
69.7
10.7
16.6
3.0
[63.9-75.4]
[7.4-14.1]
[13.1-20.1]
[1.4-4.7]
67.6
[61.5-73.6]
83.4
[79.6-87.2]
55.2
[49.8-60.6]
10.5
[7.0-14.0]
21.8
[16.4-27.3]
N/A
1,812
17.8
[14.6-21.1]
24.7
[21.5-27.9]
N/A
4.1
[2.1-6.1]
N/A
N/A
Uncovered worksites, weighted by worksite
Depends on
circumDoes not
Allows leave
stances
allow leave
DK
% [95% CI]
% [95% CI]
% [95% CI]
% [95% CI]
65.1
19.2
12.5
3.2
[59.0-71.2]
[14.9-23.6]
[7.1-17.8]
[1.4-5.0]
58.4
22.2
15.6
3.9
[53.4-63.3]
[17.4-26.9]
[10.5-20.7]
[2.5-5.4]
75.6
14.4
7.6
2.4
[70.0-81.3]
[10.0-18.7]
[4.5-10.7]
[0.8-4.0]
65.7
21.0
9.7
3.7
[60.4-71.0]
[15.9-26.1]
[5.6-13.7]
[1.5-5.8]
72.0
17.2
8.3
2.4
[67.3-76.8]
[12.7-21.7]
[5.8-10.9]
[0.8-4.0]
70.4
16.3
10.4
2.9
[64.9-75.9]
[11.7-21.0]
[6.3-14.5]
[1.2-4.6]
65.9
18.9
11.7
3.5
[60.3-71.5]
[14.4-23.4]
[8.0-15.3]
[1.7-5.4]
63.7
[57.5-70.0]
80.7
[76.1-85.2]
51.9
[45.9-57.9]
20.3
[15.9-24.7]
27.7
[22.9-32.5]
N/A
11.2
[7.4-15.0]
22.5
[16.2-28.8]
N/A
4.7
[2.4-7.1]
N/A
N/A
824
▌pg. 30
Family and Medical Leave in 2012: Final Report
Worksites that allow leave for the
following qualifying FMLA reasons
For an employee's own serious health
condition
For a pregnancy-related reason
For the care of a newborn
Covered worksites, weighted by worksite
Depends on
circumDoes not allow
Allows leave
stances
leave
DK
% [95% CI]
% [95% CI]
% [95% CI]
% [95% CI]
95.3
2.1
2.6
0.0
[91.2-99.4]
[-1.1-5.4]
[0.1-5.0]
[-0.0-0.1]
91.6
3.8
3.3
1.2
[86.1-97.1]
[-0.4-8.1]
[0.2-6.5]
[-1.0-3.5]
87.5
2.1
10.3
0.0
[80.8-94.2]
[-1.1-5.4]
[4.0-16.6]
[-0.0-0.1]
85.2
5.5
9.1
0.2
[79.2-91.3]
[0.5-10.5]
[2.7-15.5]
[0.0-0.4]
94.2
2.1
3.6
0.0
[89.8-98.7]
[-1.1-5.4]
[0.4-6.8]
[-0.0-0.1]
89.7
5.1
5.0
0.2
[83.0-96.3]
[-0.4-10.5]
[1.7-8.4]
[-0.0-0.4]
88.5
5.0
6.0
0.5
[80.1-96.8]
[-0.4-10.5]
[0.3-11.7]
[0.0-1.0]
86.8
5.5
6.8
0.9
[78.1-95.4]
[-0.1-11.0]
[0.9-12.7]
[0.2-1.7]
96.9
9.6
18.8
N/A
[93.5-100.3]
[2.8-16.4]
[9.5-28.0]
71.1
N/A
N/A
N/A
[65.4-76.7]
988
50/75 worksites, weighted by worksite
Depends on
circumDoes not allow
Allows leave
stances
leave
DK
% [95% CI]
% [95% CI]
% [95% CI]
% [95% CI]
99.0
0.1
0.9
0.1
[98.2-99.8]
[-0.1-0.3]
[0.1-1.6]
[-0.1-0.2]
98.3
0.1
1.5
0.1
[97.0-99.5]
[-0.1-0.3]
[0.4-2.7]
[-0.0-0.2]
92.7
0.1
7.1
0.1
[83.3-102.1]
[-0.1-0.3]
[-2.4-16.5]
[-0.1-0.3]
97.1
0.3
2.0
0.7
[95.6-98.6]
[0.0-0.6]
[0.8-3.1]
[0.1-1.2]
98.6
0.1
1.2
0.1
[97.7-99.5]
[-0.1-0.3]
[0.4-2.1]
[-0.1-0.2]
92.3
2.4
5.0
0.3
[88.4-96.2]
[0.2-4.5]
[2.5-7.6]
[-0.0-0.6]
96.7
0.6
1.8
0.9
[94.9-98.6]
[-0.3-1.5]
[0.7-2.9]
[-0.1-1.9]
92.2
1.7
4.0
2.2
[87.7-96.7]
[0.1-3.2]
[0.9-7.2]
[-0.2-4.5]
99.4
3.9
13.7
[98.7-100.0]
[1.1-6.7]
[3.8-23.6]
80.2
N/A
N/A
N/A
[70.5-89.9]
808
For an adoption or foster care
placement
For the care of a child, spouse or
parent with a serious health condition
For care of a parent or spouse who is
elderly
For the care of a military service
member with a serious injury or illness
For reasons related to the deployment
of a military service member
Worksites that allow leave for any of
the above qualifying FMLA reasons
Worksites that allow leave for all of the
above qualifying FMLA reasons
Unweighted N
Source: Worksite Survey Q16.
Sample: Asked of all worksites. Covered/Uncovered stratification reflects worksites’ self-reported coverage under the FMLA.
Abt Associates Inc.
▌pg. 31
Family and Medical Leave in 2012: Final Report
On June 22, 2010, DOL issued an Administrator Interpretation clarifying the definition of “son or
daughter” under the FMLA as applying to any caregiver who is responsible for regular care taking
duties for a child (“in loco parentis”) even if the child is not biologically related to the caregiver. For
example, a grandparent or aunt who is the primary regular caregiver for a child may take leave if that
child has a serious health condition (U.S. DOL, 2010). The 2012 Worksite Survey asked about
worksite policies on leave for birth, adoption, foster care, and without regard for guardian’s or
caregiver’s legal or biological relationship with the child.
Exhibit 2.4.2 suggests that rates of coverage for situations other than biological relationships are
clearly lower, even in covered worksites. For example, virtually all 50/75 worksites allow leave to
care for a newborn (99.9% of employees work at these worksites). Only three-quarters of worksites—
and 75.6% of employees work at these worksites—allow that leave for an adult serving “in loco
parentis” regardless of the employee’s legal or biological relationship to the child. (The survey
language is “guardians and caregivers of a child regardless of their legal or biological relationship to
that child.”) Findings are similar for all covered worksites, and there is a similar pattern among
uncovered worksites: 89.6% allow leave to care for a newborn, but only 68.1% of employees work at
worksites that allow that leave regardless of the employee’s legal or biological relationship to the
child.
Abt Associates Inc.
▌pg. 32
Family and Medical Leave in 2012: Final Report
Exhibit 2.4.2 Requirements of relationship to child among worksites that allow parental leave,
by coverage
All
worksites
% [95% CI]
Uncovered
worksites
% [95% CI]
Covered
worksites
% [95% CI]
50/75
worksites
% [95% CI]
Requirements of relationship to child
Weighted by employees at worksite
Percent of worksites that allow leave for the
96.6
89.6
99.6
99.9
care of a newborn*
[95.7-97.6]
[86.7-92.5]
[99.1-100.1]
[99.7-100.0]
Proportion who cover this for guardians or
73.9
68.1
76.2
75.5
caregivers regardless of the employee's legal
[66.1-81.8]
[61.7-74.4]
[66.5-86.0]
[64.9-86.1]
or biological relationship to the child
Percent of worksites that allow leave for an
94.1
82.7
98.9
99.3
adoption or foster care placement *
[92.6-95.5]
[78.6-86.7]
[98.1-99.7]
[98.7-99.9]
Proportion who cover this for guardians or
72.4
64.1
75.7
75.1
caregivers regardless of the employee's legal
[64.7-80.2]
[57.7-70.6]
[66.0-85.4]
[64.4-85.7]
or biological relationship to the child
For the care of a child, spouse or parent with a
96.7
89.9
99.6
99.9
serious health condition*
[95.8-97.7]
[87.0-92.8]
[99.1-100.1]
[99.7-100.0]
Proportion who cover this for guardians or
74.0
68.3
76.2
75.6
caregivers regardless of the employee's legal
[66.4-81.7]
[62.2-74.5]
[66.5-86.0]
[64.9-86.2]
or biological relationship to the child, spouse,
or parent
Unweighted N
1,812
824
988
808
Weighted by worksite
Percent of worksites that allow leave for the
80.9
77.6
97.8
99.8
care of a newborn*
[77.3-84.6]
[72.9-82.2]
[94.5-101.1]
[99.5-100.0]
Proportion who cover this for guardians or
66.3
64.5
74.0
72.7
caregivers regardless of the employee's legal
[59.6-73.0]
[57.3-71.6]
[62.3-85.7]
[58.3-87.0]
or biological relationship to the child
Percent of worksites that allow leave for an
77.3
73.9
94.3
99.0
adoption or foster care placement *
[73.8-80.7]
[69.1-78.7]
[89.3-99.3]
[98.4-99.7]
Proportion who cover this for guardians or
64.0
62.4
70.6
72.2
caregivers regardless of the employee's legal
[57.3-70.7]
[54.8-70.0]
[61.1-80.1]
[57.8-86.6]
or biological relationship to the child
For the care of a child, spouse or parent with a
83.3
80.4
97.8
99.8
serious health condition*
[79.4-87.1]
[75.5-85.3]
[94.6-101.1]
[99.6-100.1]
Proportion who cover this for guardians or
67.4
65.8
74.0
72.7
caregivers regardless of the employee's legal
[60.8-74.0]
[58.9-72.7]
[62.4-85.7]
[58.4-87.1]
or biological relationship to the child, spouse,
or parent
Unweighted N
1,812
824
988
808
* Includes worksites that report that they allow leave depending on circumstances.
Source: Worksite Survey Q16, Q16X1.
Sample: Asked of all worksites. Covered/Uncovered stratification reflects worksites’ self-reported coverage under
the FMLA.
2.5
Other Terms of Employment
The previous section discussed the reasons for leave allowed by worksites as these reasons related to
the FMLA. This section presents additional information on terms of employment (that is, regardless
of FMLA coverage). Exhibit 2.5.1 reports that nearly half of employees work at worksites that expect
employees to record work by hours or minutes (48.8%), while only 6.6% of employees work at
worksites that do not require their employees to report time (multiple responses were allowed).
Abt Associates Inc.
▌pg. 33
Family and Medical Leave in 2012: Final Report
Relative to uncovered worksites, covered worksites are more likely to report time in minutes and less
likely to not require reporting time.
Exhibit 2.5.1 How employees record time, by coverage
Time reporting by employees
Weighted by employees at worksite
Increments in which employees record their time:
Report time in minutes
Report time in hours
Not required to report time
Don’t know/refused
Unweighted N
Weighted by worksite
Increments in which employees record their time:
Report time in minutes
Report time in hours
Not required to report time
Don’t know/refused
All
worksites
% [95% CI]
Uncovered
worksites
% [95% CI]
Covered
worksites
% [95% CI]
50/75
worksites
% [95% CI]
48.8
[38.9-58.7]
57.3
[47.6-66.9]
6.6
[4.5-8.8]
0.1
[-0.0-0.2]
1,812
39.7
[33.1-46.3]
52.9
[46.3-59.6]
17.0
[13.1-20.9]
0.1
[-0.1-0.2]
824
52.6
[37.4-67.8]
59.1
[45.5-72.7]
2.2
[0.5-4.0]
0.1
[-0.1-0.3]
988
53.0
[36.0-70.0]
58.0
[43.0-72.9]
1.7
[0.0-3.4]
0.1
[-0.1-0.3]
808
24.6
[20.4-28.8]
46.3
[41.0-51.6]
36.8
[30.9-42.7]
0.0
[-0.0-0.1]
1,812
20.9
[16.3-25.5]
43.2
[37.4-49.0]
41.5
[35.3-47.6]
0.0
[-0.0-0.0]
824
43.3
[35.5-51.2]
61.8
[51.9-71.7]
13.5
[5.7-21.3]
0.1
[-0.0-0.3]
988
44.3
[33.1-55.4]
56.5
[44.0-68.9]
10.8
[-4.6-26.3]
0.3
[-0.1-0.7]
808
Unweighted N
Source: Worksite Survey Q10.
Columns may sum to >100% since respondent could select more than one category.
Sample: Asked of all employers. Covered/Uncovered stratification reflects worksites’ self-reported coverage
under the FMLA.
Exhibit 2.5.2 suggests that most employees work at worksites that allow their employees to take leave
for a range of reasons, but few worksites pay for that leave. Nearly three-quarters of employees work
at worksites that offer paid vacation to all or most employees (73.7%=36.2%+37.5%) and over half of
employees work at worksites that offer paid sick leave (57.8%=26.1%+31.7%). Nearly half offer paid
disability leave (46.5%=23.3%+23.2% of employees work at these worksites) and a third offer paid
maternity leave to all or most employees (i.e., specifically to mothers, 35.1%=21.6%+13.5% of
employees work at these worksites). Rates of paid paternity leave to most employees are lower (i.e.,
specifically to fathers, 20.0%=9.0%+11.0%). Less than a fifth of worksites offer flex time to all or
most employees (14.9% of employees work at these worksites; 14.9%=9.2%+5.7%); the Worksite
Survey defined “flex time” as “a flexible work schedule which allows you to choose when you work,
as long as you meet your total expected work hours”). The last three panels of Exhibit 2.5.2 provide
Abt Associates Inc.
▌pg. 34
Family and Medical Leave in 2012: Final Report
the same information for uncovered worksites, covered worksites, and 50/75 worksites, respectively.
In general, benefits are slightly more generous at covered than uncovered worksites. 24
24
Q9 of the 2000 Establishment Survey asked a similar set of questions about time off and leave policies, but
had fewer and different response categories (see Appendix C of the Methodology Report for more detail).
Therefore, the 2012 results are not comparable to the 2000 results.
Abt Associates Inc.
▌pg. 35
Family and Medical Leave in 2012: Final Report
Exhibit 2.5.2 Worksites’ time off and other leave policies offered to employees, weighted by employees at worksite
Time off and other leave policies
Worksites that offer:
Paid sick leave
Paid disability leave
Paid vacation
Paid maternity leave
Paid paternity leave
Flex time
Any other paid time off
Worksites that allow employees to take leave:
To attend a child’s school meetings
For elder care reasons
For routine medical appointments
For non-routine medical appointments
Unweighted N
Abt Associates Inc.
All worksites, weighted by employees at worksite
Uncovered worksites, weighted by employees at worksite
All
Most
Some
No
DK/
All
Most
Some
No
DK/
employees employees employees employees
refused
employees employees employees employees
refused
% [95% CI] % [95% CI] % [95% CI] % [95% CI] % [95% CI] % [95% CI] % [95% CI] % [95% CI] % [95% CI] % [95% CI]
26.1
[19.3-32.9]
23.3
[15.3-31.4]
36.2
[26.3-46.1]
21.6
[14.1-29.2]
9.0
[5.9-12.1]
9.2
[6.3-12.2]
16.1
[7.9-24.3]
31.7
[19.1-44.4]
23.2
[11.8-34.7]
37.5
[25.6-49.3]
13.5
[8.2-18.9]
11.0
[5.9-16.2]
5.7
[1.7-9.7]
23.4
[10.0-36.8]
21.6
[12.6-30.6]
19.4
[7.6-31.2]
16.8
[10.0-23.6]
23.2
[9.4-37.0]
20.8
[6.4-35.2]
37.5
[24.5-50.6]
7.0
[5.1-9.0]
19.5
[14.2-24.8]
31.8
[23.4-40.3]
8.7
[5.8-11.6]
39.3
[30.4-48.2]
55.2
[43.9-66.5]
44.8
[35.7-54.0]
52.1
[40.7-63.5]
1.1
[0.3-1.9]
2.2
[1.2-3.2]
0.9
[0.1-1.6]
2.3
[0.3-4.4]
3.9
[1.0-6.8]
2.7
[0.8-4.7]
1.4
[0.7-2.0]
27.9
[23.6-32.2]
18.4
[13.7-23.2]
40.8
[35.6-46.0]
17.6
[11.1-24.2]
9.4
[5.6-13.3]
15.3
[10.7-19.8]
12.4
[5.3-19.4]
12.4
[7.2-17.6]
7.0
[1.7-12.2]
16.2
[10.6-21.8]
7.1
[1.7-12.4]
6.0
[0.8-11.2]
2.3
[0.6-4.0]
7.0
[1.7-12.2]
17.0
[13.5-20.5]
7.4
[4.6-10.2]
20.5
[13.9-27.1]
7.4
[3.8-10.9]
3.9
[1.9-5.9]
13.8
[7.9-19.6]
4.8
[2.1-7.5]
40.3
[35.2-45.5]
62.9
[55.6-70.3]
20.9
[16.4-25.3]
62.4
[54.0-70.8]
74.7
[67.5-82.0]
63.1
[57.2-68.9]
73.9
[66.0-81.7]
2.4
[-0.0-4.8]
4.2
[2.0-6.5]
1.6
[-0.5-3.7]
5.5
[0.4-10.6]
6.0
[1.5-10.4]
5.6
[1.2-10.0]
2.0
[0.6-3.4]
67.5
[58.5-76.4]
62.7
[52.6-72.8]
71.7
[64.3-79.2]
73.1
[65.5-80.7]
10.6
[7.2-14.1]
20.9
[10.4-31.4]
15.4
[8.3-22.6]
12.6
[8.0-17.2]
12.7
[3.7-21.8]
8.9
[2.4-15.4]
5.0
[3.4-6.5]
8.1
[1.2-14.9]
1,812
7.2
[4.5-9.9]
5.4
[3.6-7.2]
5.6
[3.6-7.6]
4.2
[2.6-5.8]
2.0
[1.0-3.0]
2.2
[1.4-3.0]
2.3
[1.5-3.0]
2.0
[0.9-3.1]
79.3
[75.3-83.2]
75.7
[70.4-81.1]
80.6
[76.4-84.8]
83.2
[78.6-87.8]
5.1
[3.4-6.7]
4.2
[2.4-5.9]
4.5
[2.8-6.2]
4.1
[2.5-5.7]
5.6
[3.2-7.9]
6.6
[3.9-9.4]
6.9
[4.0-9.9]
6.0
[2.9-9.0]
824
7.2
[5.1-9.4]
10.1
[7.3-13.0]
4.9
[3.6-6.2]
3.7
[2.7-4.7]
2.9
[0.7-5.0]
3.3
[1.3-5.3]
3.1
[1.2-5.1]
3.0
[1.0-5.0]
▌pg. 36
Family and Medical Leave in 2012: Final Report
Time off and other leave policies
Worksites that offer:
Paid sick leave
Paid disability leave
Paid vacation
Paid maternity leave
Paid paternity leave
Flex time
Any other paid time off
Worksites that allow employees to take leave:
To attend a child’s school meetings
For elder care reasons
For routine medical appointments
For non-routine medical appointments
Covered worksites, weighted by employees at worksite
50/75 worksites, weighted by employees at worksite
All
Most
Some
No
DK/
All
Most
Some
No
DK/
employees employees employees employees
refused
employees employees employees employees
refused
% [95% CI] % [95% CI] % [95% CI] % [95% CI] % [95% CI] % [95% CI] % [95% CI] % [95% CI] % [95% CI] % [95% CI]
25.3
[15.9-34.7]
25.4
[13.6-37.1]
34.2
[21.2-47.3]
23.3
[12.6-34.1]
8.8
[5.0-12.7]
6.7
[3.3-10.1]
17.7
[6.7-28.6]
39.9
[23.5-56.2]
30.1
[14.5-45.6]
46.4
[31.4-61.5]
16.2
[8.4-24.0]
13.1
[5.9-20.3]
7.1
[1.4-12.8]
30.3
[12.5-48.1]
23.5
[11.2-35.8]
24.5
[8.3-40.6]
15.2
[5.9-24.5]
29.8
[11.9-47.8]
28.0
[9.6-46.3]
47.5
[31.6-63.4]
8.0
[4.9-11.0]
10.7
[6.0-15.4]
18.8
[11.8-25.7]
3.6
[1.2-5.9]
29.6
[19.5-39.7]
47.0
[32.4-61.6]
37.1
[25.8-48.5]
43.0
[28.0-58.0]
0.6
[0.1-1.1]
1.3
[0.5-2.2]
0.5
[0.1-1.0]
1.0
[0.3-1.7]
3.1
[-0.0-6.2]
1.5
[0.6-2.4]
1.1
[0.3-1.9]
24.8
[14.8-34.8]
24.8
[12.0-37.6]
34.1
[19.9-48.2]
23.3
[11.5-35.1]
7.5
[3.6-11.4]
5.4
[2.2-8.6]
17.6
[5.5-29.6]
40.8
[22.9-58.8]
31.9
[14.7-49.2]
47.8
[31.4-64.2]
17.0
[8.2-25.8]
13.6
[5.5-21.6]
7.3
[1.4-13.2]
32.3
[12.9-51.7]
24.3
[10.7-37.9]
26.5
[8.8-44.1]
14.8
[4.6-25.1]
31.6
[12.0-51.2]
30.0
[10.1-50.0]
52.2
[36.2-68.2]
8.3
[4.8-11.8]
9.5
[4.7-14.2]
15.4
[8.9-21.9]
2.7
[0.5-5.0]
27.3
[16.6-38.0]
45.7
[29.7-61.7]
33.5
[22.4-44.7]
40.7
[24.5-56.9]
0.6
[0.1-1.1]
1.3
[0.4-2.3]
0.5
[0.0-1.1]
0.8
[0.2-1.5]
3.2
[-0.3-6.6]
1.6
[0.6-2.6]
1.1
[0.2-2.0]
62.5
[48.9-76.0]
57.1
[42.6-71.7]
68.0
[56.3-79.8]
68.9
[57.3-80.6]
13.0
[7.5-18.4]
27.9
[13.5-42.3]
20.1
[10.0-30.1]
16.1
[9.0-23.2]
15.8
[3.5-28.0]
9.9
[0.7-19.0]
4.1
[2.4-5.9]
9.0
[-0.4-18.3]
988
7.1
[3.4-10.9]
3.4
[1.3-5.5]
5.9
[3.0-8.8]
4.4
[2.1-6.7]
1.7
[0.8-2.5]
1.7
[1.0-2.4]
1.9
[1.0-2.8]
1.6
[0.3-2.9]
59.4
[44.1-74.7]
54.8
[38.5-71.1]
65.8
[52.3-79.2]
66.6
[53.1-80.0]
14.2
[7.9-20.5]
29.8
[14.0-45.7]
21.8
[10.5-33.2]
17.7
[9.3-26.0]
17.0
[3.6-30.5]
10.6
[0.4-20.8]
4.0
[2.1-5.9]
9.5
[-0.8-19.8]
808
7.5
[3.3-11.8]
3.0
[0.9-5.0]
6.4
[3.1-9.6]
4.5
[1.9-7.0]
1.9
[0.9-2.8]
1.8
[1.0-2.6]
2.1
[1.0-3.1]
1.8
[0.3-3.2]
Unweighted N
Source: Worksite Survey Q11, Q14.
Sample: Asked of all worksites. Uncovered stratification reflects worksites’ self-reported coverage under the FMLA.
Abt Associates Inc.
▌pg. 37
Family and Medical Leave in 2012: Final Report
Exhibit 2.5.3 Worksites’ time off and other leave policies offered to employees, weighted by worksite
Time off and other leave policies
Worksites that offer:
Paid sick leave
All worksites, weighted by worksite
Uncovered worksites, weighted by worksite
All
Most
Some
No
DK/
All
Most
Some
No
DK/
employees employees employees employees
refused
employees employees employees employees
refused
% [95% CI] % [95% CI] % [95% CI] % [95% CI] % [95% CI] % [95% CI] % [95% CI] % [95% CI] % [95% CI] % [95% CI]
27.2
[22.8-31.7]
Paid disability leave
17.7
[12.6-22.8]
Paid vacation
36.3
[31.0-41.5]
Paid maternity leave
17.6
[12.4-22.9]
Paid paternity leave
11.4
[6.8-16.0]
Flex time
19.1
[14.0-24.1]
Any other paid time off
12.1
[7.8-16.5]
Worksites that allow employees to take leave:
To attend a child’s school meetings
77.4
[72.5-82.3]
For elder care reasons
74.4
[69.9-79.0]
For routine medical appointments
80.1
[75.5-84.6]
For non-routine medical appointments
82.5
[77.8-87.1]
Unweighted N
Abt Associates Inc.
6.7
[4.3-9.0]
4.2
[2.0-6.4]
9.6
[7.0-12.3]
3.4
[1.3-5.6]
2.6
[0.7-4.5]
1.5
[0.4-2.7]
4.0
[2.1-5.9]
9.9
[7.7-12.0]
5.1
[2.9-7.4]
12.7
[9.0-16.4]
4.1
[1.5-6.7]
2.5
[0.8-4.1]
6.4
[4.0-8.9]
3.6
[2.0-5.3]
55.1
[49.8-60.4]
70.5
[65.2-75.8]
40.8
[35.6-45.9]
72.6
[66.9-78.3]
80.6
[75.4-85.8]
70.6
[65.9-75.3]
79.0
[73.4-84.7]
1.1
[-0.0-2.3]
2.5
[1.3-3.8]
0.6
[-0.1-1.4]
2.3
[0.5-4.1]
2.9
[1.1-4.8]
2.3
[0.7-4.0]
1.3
[0.1-2.4]
24.0
[19.6-28.3]
13.9
[9.4-18.3]
33.7
[29.1-38.3]
14.6
[8.9-20.3]
9.0
[4.6-13.5]
18.3
[13.1-23.5]
10.1
[5.9-14.3]
4.4
[3.0-5.8]
2.2
[0.7-3.7]
6.8
[4.1-9.4]
2.4
[0.6-4.3]
1.7
[0.3-3.0]
1.1
[0.0-2.2]
2.4
[0.8-4.0]
9.2
[6.1-12.3]
4.1
[2.1-6.2]
12.5
[7.4-17.5]
2.5
[0.6-4.4]
1.2
[-0.1-2.5]
5.4
[3.0-7.8]
2.6
[1.0-4.1]
61.2
[55.7-66.7]
77.0
[71.9-82.1]
46.4
[41.1-51.6]
78.3
[72.6-83.9]
85.6
[80.5-90.7]
72.6
[68.1-77.0]
83.6
[79.2-88.0]
1.3
[-0.1-2.7]
2.8
[1.3-4.3]
0.7
[-0.2-1.6]
2.2
[0.3-4.1]
2.5
[0.7-4.4]
2.6
[0.7-4.6]
1.4
[0.0-2.7]
2.4
[1.2-3.5]
2.8
[1.4-4.1]
2.7
[1.6-3.9]
2.0
[0.9-3.0]
4.1
[2.4-5.8]
3.1
[1.9-4.3]
3.8
[2.0-5.5]
3.4
[1.5-5.3]
1,812
12.9
[9.2-16.5]
15.9
[13.2-18.7]
9.8
[7.6-12.0]
8.6
[6.5-10.6]
3.3
[0.5-6.0]
3.8
[1.2-6.4]
3.7
[1.1-6.2]
3.6
[0.8-6.3]
75.7
[70.0-81.3]
73.7
[68.1-79.3]
79.1
[73.8-84.5]
81.6
[75.9-87.4]
2.0
[0.8-3.2]
1.4
[0.4-2.5]
1.9
[0.6-3.1]
1.4
[0.3-2.6]
4.3
[2.4-6.3]
3.2
[1.7-4.6]
3.7
[1.7-5.7]
3.5
[1.3-5.7]
824
14.2
[10.1-18.3]
17.3
[13.3-21.4]
11.0
[8.7-13.3]
9.2
[7.2-11.3]
3.8
[0.6-7.1]
4.4
[1.3-7.5]
4.3
[1.3-7.3]
4.2
[0.9-7.5]
▌pg. 38
Family and Medical Leave in 2012: Final Report
Time off and other leave
policies
Worksites that offer:
Paid sick leave
All
employees
% [95% CI]
Covered worksites, weighted by worksite
Most
Some
No
employees employees employees DK/refused
% [95% CI] % [95% CI] % [95% CI] % [95% CI]
All
employees
% [95% CI]
43.8
18.3
13.3
24.3
0.3
45.2
[35.6-51.9]
[9.5-27.1]
[4.5-22.0]
[16.5-32.2]
[0.0-0.6]
[33.0-57.5]
Paid disability leave
36.8
14.0
10.2
38.0
1.0
35.6
[28.0-45.6]
[6.4-21.6]
[3.1-17.3]
[32.2-43.9]
[0.3-1.6]
[21.2-49.9]
Paid vacation
49.1
24.1
14.0
12.5
0.3
48.1
[37.4-60.8]
[14.6-33.7]
[5.1-22.8]
[8.2-16.9]
[0.0-0.6]
[35.2-61.0]
Paid maternity leave
32.7
8.6
12.2
43.9
2.6
32.5
[25.1-40.2]
[3.0-14.3]
[4.3-20.1]
[36.8-51.0]
[-0.3-5.4]
[18.4-46.5]
Paid paternity leave
23.2
7.6
8.9
55.4
5.0
12.5
[16.4-30.0]
[2.0-13.1]
[1.9-15.9]
[46.3-64.4]
[0.3-9.7]
[2.9-22.1]
Flex time
22.9
3.7
11.8
60.7
0.9
3.4
[11.1-34.7]
[-0.6-8.0]
[2.6-21.0]
[51.1-70.2]
[0.2-1.6]
[1.7-5.1]
Any other paid time off
22.3
11.9
9.0
56.0
0.8
24.5
[15.0-29.6]
[3.4-20.4]
[5.0-13.0]
[43.9-68.1]
[0.1-1.4]
[9.9-39.1]
Worksites that allow employees to take leave:
To attend a child’s school
86.2
4.2
3.1
6.0
0.5
79.3
meetings
[78.8-93.5]
[2.1-6.4]
[1.4-4.9]
[0.0-12.0]
[-0.0-1.0]
[71.2-87.4]
For elder care reasons
78.1
9.5
2.7
9.0
0.8
79.6
[69.1-87.1]
[2.9-16.0]
[1.4-4.0]
[2.3-15.7]
[0.1-1.4]
[71.7-87.5]
For routine medical
84.7
7.1
4.1
3.6
0.5
80.0
appointments
[75.6-93.9]
[2.5-11.6]
[0.9-7.3]
[-0.8-7.9]
[-0.0-1.1]
[71.7-88.2]
For non-routine medical
86.7
4.5
3.1
5.3
0.4
80.8
appointments
[79.5-93.8]
[2.4-6.7]
[1.3-4.8]
[-0.6-11.2]
[-0.1-0.9]
[72.8-88.8]
Unweighted N
988
Source: Worksite Survey Q11, Q14.
Sample: Asked of all worksites. Uncovered stratification reflects worksites’ self-reported coverage under the FMLA.
Abt Associates Inc.
50/75 worksites, weighted by worksite
Most
Some
No
employees employees employees
% [95% CI] % [95% CI] % [95% CI]
DK/refused
% [95% CI]
24.9
[13.3-36.5]
21.7
[9.6-33.8]
34.4
[22.7-46.0]
9.3
[4.9-13.7]
6.6
[3.3-9.8]
3.8
[1.0-6.5]
15.4
[2.8-28.1]
15.7
[9.1-22.3]
19.0
[5.2-32.8]
14.5
[8.5-20.5]
16.9
[4.7-29.0]
15.5
[2.9-28.0]
26.3
[4.1-48.5]
9.6
[5.3-13.8]
13.6
[7.5-19.7]
22.1
[12.5-31.6]
2.5
[0.6-4.4]
40.5
[24.6-56.5]
58.1
[37.4-78.9]
64.8
[44.3-85.3]
49.2
[30.4-68.1]
0.6
[0.1-1.1]
1.7
[0.5-2.8]
0.6
[0.1-1.0]
0.9
[0.2-1.6]
7.3
[-3.2-17.9]
1.7
[0.3-3.1]
1.3
[-0.0-2.6]
9.9
[5.1-14.7]
11.9
[6.7-17.1]
12.0
[6.2-17.7]
10.4
[5.0-15.7]
5.0
[1.7-8.2]
3.9
[1.8-5.9]
3.7
[1.7-5.7]
5.1
[1.8-8.5]
808
4.4
[2.0-6.8]
3.0
[1.1-4.9]
3.2
[1.6-4.8]
2.5
[1.2-3.8]
1.4
[-0.1-2.9]
1.7
[0.0-3.3]
1.2
[-0.3-2.6]
1.2
[-0.3-2.7]
▌pg. 39
Family and Medical Leave in 2012: Final Report
To manage leave-taking, some worksites have put in place “no-fault” attendance policies that assign
“points” or “demerits” for leave used regardless of the reason for the needed leave. Under such
systems all absences—excused or unexcused—generate points. Employees with point totals that
exceed a designated threshold are subject to dismissal. A July 29, 2003, Wage and Hour Division
Opinion Letter clarified that an employee may not be assessed “points” when leave is taken for a
qualifying FMLA reason under such systems (U.S. DOL, 2003).
The Worksite Survey asked about the use of such systems (“Does your company policy use a point or
demerit system that tracks an employee’s unscheduled absences?”). Exhibit 2.5.4 suggests that such
point systems are in place among about 40% of employees at all worksites, covered and uncovered
(41.5%=29.9%+11.6%). Such systems are much more common in covered than uncovered worksites,
weighted by the number of employees at the worksite (50.6%=35.0%+15.6% vs.
19.9%=17.7%+2.2%), and most common in 50/75 worksites (54.8% of employees in 50/75
worksites; 54.8%=37.7%+17.1%). This difference is consistent with the fact that covered worksites
are larger and tend, therefore, to have more-formal personnel systems; smaller worksites might
simply dismiss people for absences deemed to be excessive, or alternately, allow the leave in
individual circumstances.
Exhibit 2.5.4 Worksites’ methods for dealing with unscheduled absences by coverage
Covered
worksites with
50 employees
within 75
miles,
% [95% CI]
Worksites that use a point or
Uncovered
Covered
demerit system for employees'
All worksites
worksites
worksites
unscheduled absences
% [95% CI]
% [95% CI]
% [95% CI]
Weighted by employees at worksite
Yes, all employees
29.9
17.7
35.0
37.7
[20.8-39.0]
[11.9-23.5]
[22.3-47.8]
[23.1-52.4]
Yes, some employees
11.6
2.2
15.6
17.1
[3.9-19.3]
[0.8-3.5]
[4.9-26.2]
[5.4-28.9]
No
52.0
71.0
44.0
40.5
[41.3-62.7]
[63.4-78.6]
[28.6-59.4]
[22.8-58.2]
Depends on circumstance
5.7
8.5
4.4
3.7
[3.5-7.8]
[3.2-13.9]
[2.3-6.6]
[1.5-6.0]
Don’t know/refused
0.8
0.6
0.9
0.9
[0.1-1.6]
[0.2-1.0]
[-0.1-2.0]
[-0.2-2.1]
Unweighted N
1,812
824
988
808
Weighted by worksite
Yes, all employees
9.5
8.5
14.4
19.3
[6.8-12.2]
[5.6-11.4]
[8.5-20.4]
[11.0-27.6]
Yes, some employees
1.2
0.9
2.8
6.3
[0.4-2.0]
[0.0-1.7]
[1.2-4.5]
[2.8-9.9]
No
84.1
86.7
70.8
61.7
[81.1-87.0]
[83.3-90.1]
[62.8-78.8]
[45.4-78.0]
Depends on circumstance
5.0
3.8
11.5
12.3
[3.7-6.4]
[1.6-5.9]
[6.1-16.9]
[-3.0-27.7]
Don’t know/refused
0.2
0.2
0.4
0.3
[0.1-0.4]
[0.1-0.3]
[-0.1-1.0]
[-0.1-0.7]
Unweighted N
1,812
824
988
808
Source: Worksite Survey Q15.
Sample: Asked of all worksites. Covered/Uncovered stratification reflects worksites’ self-reported coverage under
the FMLA.
Abt Associates Inc.
▌pg. 40
Family and Medical Leave in 2012: Final Report
3.
Worksites’ FMLA and Other Leave Policies
Section 2.2 of Chapter 2 discussed worksite policies on who is eligible for leave. In this chapter, we
discuss worksite policies with respect to implementing the FMLA itself. These issues are most salient
with respect to covered worksites. Accordingly, most of these questions were asked only of worksites
that self-reported that they were covered. Where questions were asked of both types of worksites
(self-reported covered and uncovered), we report pooled results and results stratified by self-reported
coverage status as well as the subgroup of covered worksites that are large enough to have eligible
employees. Section 3.1 considers who is considered eligible at covered worksites. Section 3.2
considers covered worksites’ FMLA notification practices. Finally, Section 3.3 presents findings on
administering the FMLA at worksites.
As stated in Chapter 1, unless otherwise noted, when discussing results from the Worksite Survey, we
focus on estimates weighted by the number of employees at the worksite (not weighted by worksite)
for 50/75 worksites (i.e., worksites that have 50 employees within 75 miles and are therefore large
enough to have covered employees).
3.1
Who Is Considered Eligible
By statute, certain employees are not eligible for FMLA leave: those who do not have the requisite
number of hours of service and those who have not worked for the employer for 12 months, for
example (see Public Law 103-3 § 101(2)(A). To better understand leave policies at covered
worksites, the Worksite Survey asked:
•
Q45. In your entire organization, what types of employees do you consider to be eligible for
FMLA leave?
•
Q46. Some employees are not eligible for FMLA leave for various reasons, such as the number
of hours or months they have worked. Do you offer the same family and medical leave benefits to
employees who are NOT eligible for FMLA because of their employee type or class, that is
because they are [FILL FROM Q45]?
Exhibit 3.1.1 tabulates responses to those questions. About two-fifths of employees work at worksites
that offer FMLA-like benefits to FMLA-ineligible hourly staff (39.0%), and about a third of
employees work at worksites that offer them to ineligible staff who have at least a certain number of
hours at the company (30.1%). Less than 20% of employees work at worksites offer FMLA-like
benefits to ineligible senior managers and professional staff (17.3%).
Abt Associates Inc.
▌pg. 41
Family and Medical Leave in 2012: Final Report
Exhibit 3.1.1 Types of employees who are eligible for leave for a qualifying FMLA reason at covered worksites
Staff at covered worksites who are eligible for
leave under the FMLA
Senior managers/professional staff
Staff who have at least a certain number of hours
at the company
Hourly staff
None of the above
Weighted by employees at worksite
50/75 worksites
Covered worksites
Worksites
Worksites
Worksites
Worksites
consider
offer same
consider
offer same
staff to be
FMLA
staff to be
FMLA
eligible for
benefits to
eligible for
benefits to
FMLA
ineligible
FMLA
ineligible
benefits
staff
benefits
staff
% [95% CI]
% [95% CI]
% [95% CI]
% [95% CI]
77.5
17.3
75.1
24.0
[60.2-94.9]
[10.7-23.9]
[63.7-86.5]
[10.7-37.3]
96.6
30.1
97.2
39.4
[92.1-101.0]
[15.3-44.8]
[94.7-99.6]
[21.8-57.0]
77.6
39.0
75.0
40.7
[60.3-95.0]
[21.8-56.3]
[63.6-86.4]
[22.6-58.9]
0.4
0.5
N/A
N/A
[0.0-0.7]
[-0.0-1.1]
808
988
Unweighted N
Source: Worksite Survey Q45.
Columns may sum to >100% since respondent could select more than one category.
Sample: Asked of worksites that self-report that they are covered by the FMLA.
Abt Associates Inc.
Weighted by worksite
50/75 worksites
Covered worksites
Worksites
Worksites
Worksites
Worksites
consider
offer same
consider
offer same
staff to be
FMLA
staff to be
FMLA
eligible for
benefits to
eligible for
benefits to
FMLA
ineligible
FMLA
ineligible
benefits
staff
benefits
staff
% [95% CI]
% [95% CI]
% [95% CI]
% [95% CI]
73.5
38.3
76.1
20.5
[62.2-84.8]
[24.7-52.0]
[60.7-91.6]
[13.2-27.9]
90.0
57.2
96.0
34.0
[82.7-97.3]
[44.5-69.9]
[91.9-100.0]
[19.8-48.2]
71.0
48.8
76.0
40.6
[59.7-82.2]
[37.6-60.0]
[60.5-91.4]
[24.9-56.3]
0.6
N/A
0.4
N/A
[0.0-1.3]
[0.1-0.8]
808
808
▌pg. 42
Family and Medical Leave in 2012: Final Report
3.2
Worksites’ FMLA Notification Provisions
According to the FMLA regulations (29 C.F.R. § 825.300), worksites are required to provide a range
of notifications related to the FMLA. First, covered worksites 25 are required to display a poster
explaining the provisions of the FMLA and telling employees how to file a complaint with the Wage
and Hour Division if the worksite appears to be in violation of the Act. Electronic posting is also
acceptable. (See § 825.300(a) (1).) These requirements apply whether or not the worksite is large
enough to have eligible employees (50 employees within 75 miles). This discussion therefore
discusses rates both for covered worksites in general and specifically for covered worksites having 50
employees within 75 miles (what we call “50/75 worksites”).
Nearly four in five employees work in covered worksites that report a notice on a bulletin board
(78.4%; Exhibit 3.2.1); this is nearly the same as the number of employees who work at 50/75
worksites (79.3%). Counting either notice on a bulletin board or notice on a computer network, 84.8%
of 50/75 covered worksites appear to meet the posting requirement (not reported in Exhibit 3.2.1).
The regulations also require worksites to include the FMLA in their employee handbook if they have
one (§825.300(a)(3)), and more than four-fifths of employees in covered worksites report that they do
(84.7% for covered worksites; 85.5% for 50/75 worksites). In addition, nearly three-quarters of
employees in covered worksites report discussing the FMLA in meetings with employees (73.5% of
covered worksites; 73.9% of 50/75 worksites).
25
This requirement applies whether or not there are any eligible employees (e.g., if the firm has more than 50
employees, but there are not 50 employees within 75 miles of this worksite).
Abt Associates Inc.
▌pg. 43
Family and Medical Leave in 2012: Final Report
Exhibit 3.2.1 Methods used by covered worksites to inform employees of their rights under the
FMLA
Methods used to inform employees of
rights under the FMLA
Employee handbook
Notice on bulletin board
Memos
Computer network, intranet or Email
Oral notification
Employee orientation and/or other meetings
with employees
Some other method
Does not inform employees of their rights
Weighted by number of
employees
50/75
Covered
worksites
worksites
% [95% CI]
% [95% CI]
85.5
84.7
[75.5-95.4]
[75.6-93.8]
79.3
78.4
[61.7-97.0]
[62.9-93.8]
43.2
42.9
[27.1-59.3]
[28.5-57.3]
63.7
60.0
[48.2-79.2]
[46.1-73.9]
76.0
72.3
[67.5-84.6]
[63.2-81.5]
73.9
73.5
[55.5-92.4]
[57.0-90.0]
19.2
17.6
[7.2-31.2]
[7.0-28.2]
0.1
0.2
[-0.1-0.2]
[0.0-0.4]
808
988
Weighted by worksite
50/75
Covered
worksites
worksites
% [95% CI]
% [95% CI]
92.3
75.6
[88.4-96.2]
[65.2-86.1]
68.4
61.5
[53.4-83.3]
[48.1-74.9]
42.9
37.7
[31.5-54.3]
[29.2-46.2]
35.7
31.7
[26.6-44.8]
[22.1-41.3]
58.5
50.9
[41.0-75.9]
[37.7-64.1]
72.9
62.1
[61.6-84.3]
[51.4-72.8]
10.1
4.9
[5.3-15.0]
[2.9-6.9]
0.0
2.4
[-0.0-0.1]
[-0.6-5.4]
808
988
Unweighted N
Source: Worksite Survey Q48.
Columns may sum to >100% since respondent could select more than one category.
Sample: Asked of worksites that self-report that they are covered by the FMLA.
Exhibit 3.2.2 reports sources that worksites use to get information on the FMLA. Focusing on 50/75
worksites weighted by the number of employees at the worksite, nine-tenths of employees at 50/75
worksites report getting information from DOL (90.9%), four-fifths report getting information from
existing company policies or procedures (80.4%), more than two-thirds report getting information
from an attorney or consultant (68.4%), and about a third report getting information from a trade or
business group (30.5%).
Abt Associates Inc.
▌pg. 44
Family and Medical Leave in 2012: Final Report
Exhibit 3.2.2 Sources used by covered worksites to get information on FMLA
Weighted by number of
employees
Weighted by worksite
50/75
Covered
50/75
worksites
worksites
worksites
Sources of information on FMLA
% [95% CI]
% [95% CI]
% [95% CI]
The U.S. Department of Labor
90.9
90.2
73.5
[87.3-94.6]
[86.7-93.6]
[59.2-87.7]
The media
14.7
14.6
8.9
[4.3-25.0]
[5.1-24.1]
[4.6-13.2]
A trade or business group
30.5
31.4
21.6
[18.7-42.4]
[20.5-42.2]
[12.2-31.1]
An attorney or consultant
68.4
63.7
43.8
[52.3-84.5]
[49.0-78.3]
[34.2-53.5]
A union
11.7
10.6
3.9
[0.7-22.7]
[0.6-20.6]
[0.6-7.2]
Your employees
14.4
13.7
12.1
[3.5-25.3]
[3.8-23.6]
[2.3-22.0]
Existing company policies or
80.4
76.7
76.4
procedures
[62.9-97.8]
[61.4-92.1]
[64.9-87.9]
Some other source
18.1
16.8
28.2
[8.4-27.8]
[8.3-25.3]
[14.3-42.0]
Do not use any source
0.1
0.6
0.0
[-0.1-0.2]
[0.1-1.0]
[-0.0-0.1]
Unweighted N
808
988
808
Columns may sum to >100% since respondent could select more than one category.
Source: 2012 Worksite Survey Q47; 2000 Report Table A1-6.1.
Cells with “N/A” indicate that the data were not reported in the 2000 Report.
2012 Sample: Asked of worksites that self-report that they are covered by the FMLA.
Abt Associates Inc.
Covered
worksites %
[95% CI]
75.9
[68.8-83.1]
11.2
[5.5-16.9]
24.4
[13.3-35.6]
31.0
[25.4-36.6]
1.5
[0.1-2.9]
14.5
[6.6-22.4]
53.9
[43.8-64.1]
13.1
[8.2-18.0]
7.8
[1.9-13.7]
988
Weighted by
worksite
2000 survey
covered
worksites
% [95% CI]
83.1
[76.5-89.7]
54.2
[68-100.4]
68.3
[57.2-79.4]
77.9
[71.4-84.4]
3.2
[0.7-5.7]
10.0
[1.6-18.4]
89.4
[83.9-94.9]
12.4
[8.1-16.7]
N/A
Weighted by
worksite
1995 survey
covered
worksites
% [95% CI]
53.9
[43.1-64.7]
66.4
[50.5-82.3]
70.3
[60.5-80.1]
57.0
[47.4-66.6]
3.0
[0.3-5.7]
3.3
[1-5.6]
N/A
736
1,070
20.5
[10.5-30.5]
N/A
▌pg. 45
Family and Medical Leave in 2012: Final Report
3.3
Administering FMLA
About half of workers work at 50/75 worksites that report using a combination of computer software
and a designated Human Resources staff person to track family and medical leave use (48.2%), while
only a small fraction report not using any formal method (3.1%). A third of workers at these
worksites report using only a designated Human Resources staff person without computer support
(38.7%; Exhibit 3.3.1). Exhibit 3.3.2 reports that about 10% of workers work at 50/75 worksites that
outsource processing of FMLA requests (10.2%).
Abt Associates Inc.
▌pg. 46
Family and Medical Leave in 2012: Final Report
Exhibit 3.3.1 Methods used by worksites to track family and medical leave, by coverage
Weighted by employees at worksite
Covered
50/75
All
Uncovered
sites
worksites
All worksites
Methods used to track leave
% [95% CI]
% [95% CI]
% [95% CI]
% [95% CI]
% [95% CI]
Computer software
3.7
7.1
2.3
1.9
5.1
[1.6-5.7]
[0.9-13.2]
[1.1-3.4]
[0.8-2.9]
[2.2-8.0]
Designated person in human resources
34.5
26.0
38.0
38.7
17.4
[23.2-45.7]
[18.3-33.7]
[23.4-52.7]
[22.5-54.8]
[12.1-22.7]
Both computer software and designated
36.5
13.6
46.1
48.2
9.4
HR person
[25.8-47.1]
[10.1-17.1]
[31.9-60.4]
[32.5-63.8]
[7.9-10.9]
Other method of tracking leave for a
7.7
6.3
8.2
7.8
5.2
qualifying FMLA reason
[4.9-10.4]
[2.4-10.2]
[4.8-11.7]
[4.2-11.4]
[2.0-8.3]
Do not track family and medical leave
17.0
46.5
4.7
3.1
62.6
[13.0-21.1]
[41.1-51.9]
[1.3-8.0]
[-0.3-6.5]
[56.1-69.0]
Don’t know/refused
0.6
0.5
0.7
0.5
0.4
[0.3-1.0]
[0.1-0.9]
[0.2-1.2]
[0.0-0.9]
[0.0-0.8]
Unweighted N
1,812
824
988
808
1,812
Source: Worksite Survey Q68. All responses are mutually exclusive.
Sample: Asked of all worksites. Covered/Uncovered stratification reflects worksites’ self-reported coverage under the FMLA.
Abt Associates Inc.
Weighted by worksite
Uncovered
Covered
worksites
worksites %
% [95% CI]
[95% CI]
4.6
7.5
[0.9-8.2]
[2.2-12.9]
13.2
38.8
[8.2-18.2]
[30.2-47.5]
7.7
17.9
[6.3-9.0]
[13.6-22.3]
4.3
9.3
[1.4-7.2]
[2.3-16.4]
70.1
24.6
[64.3-75.9]
[13.3-35.8]
0.1
1.8
[0.0-0.2]
[-0.5-4.2]
824
988
50/75
worksites
% [95% CI]
2.6
[0.9-4.4]
59.6
[47.2-72.1]
17.9
[10.8-25.0]
9.9
[-0.3-20.1]
9.3
[-1.2-19.9]
0.6
[0.1-1.2]
808
▌pg. 47
Family and Medical Leave in 2012: Final Report
Exhibit 3.3.2 Methods used by covered worksites to process FMLA requests
`Methods used to process
FMLA requests
FMLA processing internally
FMLA processing outsourced
FMLA processing other
Don’t know/refused
Weighted by employees at
worksite
50/75
Covered
worksites
worksites
% [95% CI]
% [95% CI]
89.2
88.3
[83.7-94.7]
[83.0-93.6]
10.2
10.4
[5.0-15.5]
[5.5-15.2]
0.3
0.7
[0.0-0.6]
[0.2-1.3]
0.3
0.6
[0.0-0.6]
[0.1-1.1]
808
988
Weighted by worksite
50/75
Covered
worksites
worksites
% [95% CI]
% [95% CI]
88.6
83.1
[78.9-98.4]
[71.7-94.5]
9.9
10.9
[-0.1-19.9]
[0.9-20.8]
0.6
2.8
[-0.1-1.4]
[-0.4-5.9]
0.8
3.2
[-0.1-1.6]
[-1.3-7.8]
808
988
Unweighted N
Source: Worksite Survey Q18.
Sample: Asked of worksites that self-report that they are covered by the FMLA.
The Worksite Survey asked covered worksites about the ease of complying with the FMLA (Exhibit
3.3.3 and Exhibit 3.3.4). About a quarter of employees work at 50/75 worksites that report that it was
either “very easy” (17.4%) or had “no noticeable effect” (7.7%); a third of these employees work at
50/75 worksites that report that complying is “very difficult” (2.5%) or “somewhat difficult” (29.2%).
The balance (43.2% )of employees work at 50/75 worksites that report that complying was
“somewhat easy.” Weighting by worksites, “very difficult” and “somewhat difficult” are less
common responses (1.0% vs. 2.5% and 13.6% vs. 29.2%).26
Exhibit 3.3.5 reports ease of conducting various FMLA-related activities. There are no major
differences across activities. Exhibit 3.3.6 reports changes in ease of conducting various FMLArelated activities over time. Reported ease of compliance has improved; “easy” answers have become
more common; “difficult” answers have become less common.
26
Q34 of the 2000 Establishment Survey asked a similar question, but did not include “no noticeable effect”
as a response category (see Appendix C of the Methodology Report for more detail). Therefore, the 2012
results are not comparable to the 2000 results.
Abt Associates Inc.
▌pg. 48
Family and Medical Leave in 2012: Final Report
Exhibit 3.3.3 Covered worksites’ reported ease of complying with FMLA
Source: Worksite Survey Q52.
Sample: Asked of worksites that self-report that they are covered by the FMLA.
Exhibit 3.3.4 Covered worksites’ reported ease of complying with FMLA
Weighted by number of employees
Weighted by worksite
50/75 worksites
Covered worksites
50/75 worksites
Covered worksites
Ease of compliance
% [95% CI]
% [95% CI]
% [95% CI]
% [95% CI]
2.5
2.2
1.0
0.6
Very difficult
[0.4-4.5]
[0.5-4.0]
[0.2-1.8]
[0.2-0.9]
29.2
26.5
13.6
5.5
Somewhat difficult
[12.9-45.5]
[11.7-41.3]
[4.1-23.0]
[1.5-9.6]
43.2
42.0
49.2
29.8
Somewhat easy
[25.4-61.1]
[25.9-58.2]
[36.4-62.1]
[21.7-37.9]
17.4
19.7
26.1
35.7
Very easy
[10.3-24.4]
[12.7-26.7]
[13.3-38.9]
[28.4-43.1]
7.7
9.3
10.1
27.7
No noticeable effect
[2.5-12.8]
[4.4-14.3]
[4.6-15.6]
[18.6-36.9]
0.0
0.2
0.0
0.5
Don’t know/refused
[-0.0-0.1]
[-0.0-0.3]
[-0.0-0.1]
[-0.1-1.2]
808
988
808
988
Unweighted N
Source: Worksite Survey Q52.
Sample: Asked of worksites that self-report that they are covered by the FMLA.
Abt Associates Inc.
▌pg. 49
Family and Medical Leave in 2012: Final Report
Exhibit 3.3.5 Covered worksites’ reported ease of conducting activities related to FMLA
Very easy
Ease of conducting following activities
% [95% CI]
50/75 worksites, weighted by number of employees
Coordinating state and federal leave policies
12.3
[6.8-17.7]
Coordinating the Act with other federal laws
12.1
[6.1-18.1]
Coordinating the Act with other leave policies
13.2
[7.3-19.1]
Coordinating the Act with employee attendance
15.2
policies
[7.9-22.6]
Coordinating the act with your Collective Bargaining
7.8
Agreement
[2.3-13.2]
Administering FMLA's notification, designation, and
13.7
certification requirements
[7.7-19.6]
Determining if a health condition is a serious health
14.5
condition under the FMLA
[7.2-21.7]
Unweighted N
All covered worksites, weighted by number of employees
Coordinating state and federal leave policies
11.6
[6.9-16.3]
Coordinating the Act with other federal laws
12.2
[6.9-17.6]
Coordinating the Act with other leave policies
13.3
[8.1-18.5]
Coordinating the Act with employee attendance
16.0
policies
[9.1-22.9]
Coordinating the act with your Collective Bargaining
2.6
Agreement
[-2.9-8.0]
Administering FMLA's notification, designation, and
26.3
certification requirements
[16.1-36.6]
Determining if a health condition is a serious health
13.6
condition under the FMLA
[5.2-22.0]
Unweighted N
Abt Associates Inc.
Somewhat
easy
% [95% CI]
Somewhat
difficult
% [95% CI]
Very difficult
% [95% CI]
N/A
% [95% CI]
DK/refused
% [95% CI]
43.0
[25.1-61.0]
50.4
[33.6-67.1]
46.7
[30.0-63.5]
35.9
[20.1-51.7]
23.6
[9.0-38.2]
50.9
[33.3-68.4]
36.2
[20.6-51.9]
26.2
[12.5-39.8]
24.9
[13.4-36.4]
34.6
[17.9-51.4]
28.2
[14.7-41.7]
39.2
[12.8-65.6]
24.6
[9.4-39.8]
40.5
[23.8-57.1]
808
3.7
[1.4-5.9]
8.2
[-1.9-18.2]
1.9
[0.6-3.2]
10.3
[-4.4-25.0]
17.5
[-5.4-40.3]
7.8
[-2.3-17.9]
2.8
[1.1-4.5]
13.8
[-0.7-28.4]
4.2
[2.0-6.4]
3.1
[1.3-4.9]
9.7
[-0.6-19.9]
11.0
[2.8-19.2]
2.7
[1.2-4.3]
5.3
[2.6-7.9]
1.0
[-0.2-2.3]
0.3
[0.0-0.5]
0.4
[0.0-0.8]
0.6
[0.1-1.2]
0.9
[0.1-1.8]
0.3
[0.0-0.6]
0.8
[0.2-1.4]
56.2
[34.7-77.8]
40.6
[22.1-59.0]
41.5
[28.3-54.7]
54.8
[33.4-76.3]
5.4
[-5.9-16.7]
39.4
[22.0-56.8]
29.1
[11.1-47.0]
8.9
[2.4-15.5]
17.6
[11.7-23.5]
24.4
[3.7-45.1]
5.1
[0.6-9.6]
13.4
[-14.9-41.8]
6.1
[0.5-11.6]
34.6
[3.8-65.4]
988
4.2
[-0.6-9.0]
0.6
[-0.5-1.7]
4.1
[-0.9-9.0]
2.9
[-1.4-7.2]
0.0
[0.0-0.0]
4.6
[-0.6-9.7]
2.7
[-1.5-7.0]
18.9
[8.3-29.5]
26.2
[10.7-41.6]
13.5
[4.9-22.2]
14.8
[5.4-24.2]
78.6
[46.2-111.1]
18.0
[7.3-28.7]
14.1
[6.1-22.1]
5.4
[0.4-10.5]
5.8
[0.5-11.1]
6.1
[0.7-11.5]
4.0
[0.4-7.5]
0.0
[0.0-0.0]
5.6
[0.5-10.8]
5.9
[0.7-11.0]
▌pg. 50
Family and Medical Leave in 2012: Final Report
Ease of conducting following activities
50/75 worksites, weighted by worksite
Coordinating state and federal leave policies
Coordinating the Act with other federal laws
Coordinating the Act with other leave policies
Coordinating the Act with employee attendance
policies
Coordinating the act with your Collective Bargaining
Agreement
Administering FMLA's notification, designation, and
certification requirements
Determining if a health condition is a serious health
condition under the FMLA
Unweighted N
All covered worksites, weighted by worksite
Coordinating state and federal leave policies
Coordinating the Act with other federal laws
Coordinating the Act with other leave policies
Very easy
% [95% CI]
Somewhat
easy
% [95% CI]
Very difficult
% [95% CI]
N/A
% [95% CI]
DK/refused
% [95% CI]
14.0
[7.6-20.4]
12.2
[6.7-17.8]
15.9
[8.9-22.9]
15.5
[8.0-22.9]
14.3
[5.0-23.7]
16.1
[8.7-23.5]
14.6
[7.4-21.7]
57.6
[40.7-74.4]
59.0
[43.1-74.9]
56.0
[45.0-67.0]
54.3
[43.3-65.2]
37.3
[23.0-51.6]
61.6
[46.4-76.7]
55.4
[45.0-65.8]
13.7
[6.9-20.6]
19.4
[11.3-27.4]
18.9
[10.2-27.6]
18.6
[9.4-27.8]
20.4
[3.8-37.1]
14.9
[8.2-21.7]
15.7
[9.3-22.0]
808
5.0
[2.2-7.8]
3.0
[1.2-4.7]
2.4
[0.7-4.2]
2.2
[0.6-3.8]
6.0
[-0.7-12.6]
2.9
[0.8-5.1]
1.7
[0.6-2.8]
8.6
[4.2-13.0]
5.6
[2.6-8.6]
5.8
[2.4-9.1]
8.1
[4.0-12.3]
20.4
[9.5-31.3]
3.6
[1.4-5.8]
11.2
[1.3-21.0]
1.0
[-0.2-2.3]
0.8
[-0.3-2.0]
1.0
[-0.2-2.3]
1.3
[-0.1-2.7]
1.6
[0.1-3.0]
0.9
[-0.3-2.0]
1.5
[0.1-3.0]
13.0
[6.8-19.1]
18.0
[10.4-25.6]
20.7
[12.5-29.0]
28.1
[19.1-37.1]
13.6
[5.0-22.3]
24.2
[15.0-33.4]
23.8
[15.6-32.0]
47.6
[37.1-58.1]
36.3
[25.9-46.6]
45.5
[34.2-56.7]
42.7
[35.2-50.2]
36.1
[22.8-49.3]
37.7
[27.0-48.3]
38.5
[25.2-51.7]
13.9
[7.5-20.3]
22.1
[15.9-28.3]
12.9
[5.7-20.2]
9.9
[4.2-15.6]
19.6
[4.0-35.2]
13.0
[5.2-20.8]
15.6
[1.6-29.5]
988
4.7
[0.5-8.9]
1.3
[0.6-2.0]
4.7
[0.0-9.3]
3.3
[-0.7-7.3]
5.5
[-0.7-11.6]
4.8
[0.1-9.4]
3.3
[-0.7-7.3]
17.3
[9.7-24.9]
18.7
[10.3-27.0]
12.4
[5.6-19.2]
14.3
[7.4-21.2]
23.3
[12.2-34.4]
16.7
[6.2-27.2]
15.1
[8.8-21.3]
3.5
[-1.1-8.0]
3.6
[-1.0-8.2]
3.8
[-0.9-8.5]
1.7
[0.5-2.8]
1.9
[0.3-3.4]
3.7
[-1.0-8.3]
3.8
[-0.9-8.4]
Coordinating the Act with employee attendance
policies
Coordinating the act with your Collective Bargaining
Agreement
Administering FMLA's notification, designation, and
certification requirements
Determining if a health condition is a serious health
condition under the FMLA
Unweighted N
Source: Worksite Survey Q50.
Sample: Asked of worksites that self-report that they are covered by the FMLA.
Abt Associates Inc.
Somewhat
difficult
% [95% CI]
▌pg. 51
Family and Medical Leave in 2012: Final Report
Exhibit 3.3.6 Covered worksites’ reported ease of conducting activities related to FMLA: 2012, 2000, 1995
2012
2000
Very/
Very/
Very/
Very/
Somewhat
Somewhat
Somewhat
Somewhat
Easy
Difficult
Easy
Difficult
Ease of conducting following activities
% [95% CI]
% [95% CI]
% [95% CI]
% [95% CI]
Coordinating state and federal leave policies
60.6
18.6
57.1
42.9
[48.4-72.8]
[11.1-26.1]
[40.8-73.4]
[26.6-59.2]
Coordinating the Act with other federal laws
54.3
23.4
47.2
52.8
[41.4-67.2]
[17.2-29.7]
[35.3-59.1]
[40.9-64.7]
Coordinating the Act with other leave policies
66.2
17.6
59.9
40.1
[55.8-76.7]
[9.0-26.1]
[49.2-70.6]
[29.4-50.8]
Coordinating the Act with employee attendance
70.8
13.2
65.5
34.5
policies
[62.4-79.2]
[6.0-20.4]
[51.6-79.4]
[20.6-48.4]
Coordinating the act with your Collective Bargaining
49.7
25.1
N/A
N/A
Agreement
[35.1-64.4]
[9.3-40.9]
Administering FMLA's notification, designation, and
61.9
17.8
45.6
54.4
certification requirements
[48.8-75.0]
[8.3-27.2]
[34.7-56.5]
[43.5-65.3]
Determining if a health condition is a serious health
62.3
18.9
57.7
42.3
condition under the FMLA
[48.4-76.1]
[4.3-33.5]
[47.4-68]
[32-52.6]
Unweighted N
988
1,070
Source: 2012 Worksite Survey Q50; 2000 Report Table A1-6.4.
Cells with “N/A” indicate that the data were not reported in the 2000 Report.
2012 Sample: Asked of worksites that self-report that they are covered by the FMLA, weighted by worksite.
Abt Associates Inc.
1995
Very/
Very/
Somewhat
Somewhat
Easy
Difficult
% [95% CI]
% [95% CI]
81.1
18.9
[72.7-89.5]
[10.5-27.3]
74.3
25.7
[65.3-83.3]
[16.7-34.7]
78.9
21.1
[67.2-90.6]
[9.4-32.8]
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
736
▌pg. 52
Family and Medical Leave in 2012: Final Report
The FMLA includes several provisions to ease the burden it imposes on worksites. Exhibit 3.3.7
reports how helpful covered worksites consider these provisions. The helpfulness (i.e., reported as
either “very helpful” or “somewhat helpful”) of the provisions varied across the 50/75 worksites.
Over half of workers work at 50/75 worksites that report the following provisions were helpful:
medical certifications (74.1%=25.9%+48.2%), medical recertifications (69.6%=31.1%+38.5%)
fitness-for-duty (69.2%=19.8%+49.4%), and advance notice for foreseeable leave
(65.5%=29.0%+36.5%) helpful. Conversely, only about a fifth of employees work at 50/75 worksites
that report provisions for the exception for highly paid key employees to be helpful
(20.7%=6.2%+14.5%). 27
27
Q33 of the 2000 Establishment Survey asked a similar question, but had fewer and different response
categories (see Appendix C of the Methodology Report for more detail). Therefore, the 2012 results are not
comparable to the 2000 results.
Abt Associates Inc.
▌pg. 53
Family and Medical Leave in 2012: Final Report
Exhibit 3.3.7 Covered worksites’ perception on helpfulness of FMLA provisions
Worksites’ perception of the helpfulness
Very helpful
of the following FMLA provisions
% [95% CI]
50/75 worksites, weighted by employees at worksite
The exception for highly paid key employees
6.2
[3.2-9.2]
Medical certifications for a serious health
25.9
condition
[16.1-35.8]
Second and third medical opinions
4.8
[2.2-7.4]
Advance notice of foreseeable leave
29.0
[11.8-46.3]
Transfer to an alternative position
8.6
[4.3-12.9]
Medical re-certification
31.1
[12.8-49.4]
The fitness-for-duty certification for
19.8
employees
[12.0-27.7]
Certification of leave for a reason related to
13.4
the deployment of a military service member
[6.9-19.9]
Certification of a serious injury or illness of a
19.5
military service member
[1.9-37.1]
Unweighted
All covered worksites, weighted by employees at worksite
The exception for highly paid key employees
6.2
[3.7-8.8]
Medical certifications for a serious health
24.7
condition
[16.4-33.1]
Second and third medical opinions
5.1
[2.7-7.6]
Advance notice of foreseeable leave
27.6
[12.0-43.2]
Transfer to an alternative position
8.2
[4.5-11.9]
Medical re-certification
29.2
[12.4-46.0]
Abt Associates Inc.
Somewhat
helpful
% [95% CI]
Neither
% [95% CI]
Somewhat
unhelpful
% [95% CI]
Very
unhelpful
% [95% CI]
N/A
% [95% CI]
DK/refused
% [95% CI]
14.5
[9.8-19.2]
48.2
[31.0-65.5]
22.4
[11.1-33.7]
36.5
[21.0-52.1]
38.1
[20.5-55.8]
38.5
[22.2-54.8]
49.4
[32.8-65.9]
28.5
[11.8-45.3]
29.5
[14.4-44.5]
28.9
[12.4-45.3]
16.2
[0.3-32.0]
31.0
[14.5-47.5]
16.1
[1.7-30.6]
19.1
[4.9-33.4]
14.7
[0.3-29.0]
16.8
[1.0-32.6]
26.6
[9.9-43.2]
24.5
[7.3-41.7]
1.5
[0.3-2.7]
1.8
[0.4-3.2]
2.1
[1.0-3.3]
9.0
[-0.9-19.0]
2.7
[1.2-4.2]
2.8
[0.8-4.8]
1.8
[0.7-2.9]
7.3
[-3.1-17.6]
1.5
[0.3-2.8]
808
3.6
[-1.0-8.1]
1.2
[0.2-2.1]
3.1
[0.4-5.8]
1.7
[0.2-3.3]
8.7
[-1.7-19.1]
1.2
[-0.1-2.5]
0.9
[0.2-1.6]
1.8
[-0.4-4.1]
0.7
[0.1-1.3]
42.9
[27.2-58.6]
5.9
[3.2-8.5]
35.0
[18.0-52.0]
6.7
[3.6-9.9]
21.2
[13.0-29.4]
10.7
[6.4-15.0]
10.0
[6.1-14.0]
21.1
[13.8-28.3]
22.7
[14.7-30.6]
2.4
[1.0-3.9]
0.8
[0.2-1.5]
1.6
[0.6-2.5]
0.8
[0.2-1.4]
1.5
[0.4-2.6]
1.0
[0.2-1.8]
1.2
[0.4-2.1]
1.4
[0.4-2.3]
1.7
[0.5-2.8]
14.4
[10.2-18.6]
46.7
[30.9-62.4]
21.7
[11.6-31.8]
36.5
[22.5-50.4]
38.2
[22.4-53.9]
38.0
[23.3-52.6]
26.8
[11.9-41.7]
15.6
[1.3-29.9]
28.6
[13.7-43.4]
15.2
[2.2-28.1]
17.8
[5.0-30.7]
14.0
[1.1-26.9]
1.3
[0.3-2.4]
1.7
[0.5-3.0]
1.9
[0.9-2.9]
8.2
[-0.7-17.2]
2.5
[1.2-3.8]
2.6
[0.8-4.3]
3.2
[-0.8-7.2]
1.0
[0.2-1.9]
2.8
[0.3-5.2]
1.6
[0.2-3.0]
7.9
[-1.5-17.4]
1.1
[-0.1-2.2]
45.5
[31.5-59.5]
9.0
[5.7-12.3]
38.0
[22.6-53.4]
9.9
[5.9-13.9]
23.7
[15.5-31.9]
14.0
[9.1-19.0]
2.6
[1.2-3.9]
1.2
[0.4-2.1]
1.9
[0.8-3.0]
1.0
[0.4-1.7]
1.7
[0.7-2.8]
1.2
[0.4-2.0]
▌pg. 54
Family and Medical Leave in 2012: Final Report
Worksites’ perception of the helpfulness
of the following FMLA provisions
The fitness-for-duty certification for
employees
Certification of leave for a reason related to
the deployment of a military service member
Certification of a serious injury or illness of a
military service member
Unweighted N
50/75 worksites, weighted by worksite
The exception for highly paid key employees
Medical certifications for a serious health
condition
Second and third medical opinions
Advance notice of foreseeable leave
Transfer to an alternative position
Medical re-certification
The fitness-for-duty certification for
employees
Certification of leave for a reason related to
the deployment of a military service member
Certification of a serious injury or illness of a
military service member
Unweighted N
All covered worksites, weighted by worksite
The exception for highly paid key employees
Medical certifications for a serious health
condition
Second and third medical opinions
Abt Associates Inc.
Very helpful
% [95% CI]
19.2
[12.2-26.2]
12.8
[7.3-18.3]
18.5
[2.5-34.5]
Somewhat
helpful
% [95% CI]
47.5
[32.4-62.7]
27.0
[12.0-42.0]
27.6
[14.0-41.2]
Neither
% [95% CI]
16.3
[2.1-30.6]
24.5
[9.4-39.6]
23.1
[7.5-38.8]
Somewhat
unhelpful
% [95% CI]
1.7
[0.7-2.7]
6.6
[-2.9-16.0]
1.4
[0.3-2.5]
988
Very
unhelpful
% [95% CI]
0.8
[0.2-1.4]
1.7
[-0.4-3.7]
0.6
[0.1-1.2]
N/A
% [95% CI]
13.0
[9.0-17.0]
25.9
[17.4-34.4]
27.0
[17.9-36.1]
DK/refused
% [95% CI]
1.5
[0.5-2.5]
1.5
[0.6-2.4]
1.8
[0.7-2.9]
6.9
[3.5-10.3]
26.0
[14.2-37.7]
9.2
[-0.4-18.7]
26.2
[14.4-38.0]
8.1
[4.3-11.9]
18.5
[6.3-30.7]
18.8
[10.9-26.6]
9.1
[4.2-14.0]
16.1
[3.3-28.9]
22.6
[11.3-33.8]
40.5
[19.6-61.5]
15.0
[9.0-21.0]
40.0
[26.9-53.0]
33.2
[11.6-54.7]
37.6
[24.9-50.3]
39.4
[26.2-52.6]
22.5
[8.8-36.3]
24.3
[9.3-39.4]
20.4
[5.2-35.7]
16.5
[1.2-31.9]
26.5
[9.4-43.6]
16.6
[1.3-31.9]
25.6
[8.8-42.4]
18.8
[3.4-34.1]
16.7
[1.4-32.0]
23.6
[6.7-40.5]
17.1
[1.8-32.4]
2.2
[0.3-4.0]
2.1
[0.2-4.0]
1.5
[0.5-2.5]
1.9
[0.4-3.4]
1.5
[0.6-2.3]
0.7
[0.2-1.3]
1.1
[0.4-1.8]
3.1
[-0.1-6.4]
1.3
[-0.0-2.6]
808
1.5
[-0.4-3.5]
0.6
[0.1-1.0]
0.7
[0.2-1.1]
0.8
[0.2-1.4]
2.5
[-0.5-5.6]
0.6
[0.0-1.1]
0.7
[0.2-1.3]
0.4
[0.1-0.8]
0.6
[0.0-1.1]
38.6
[28.5-48.7]
12.9
[6.5-19.3]
45.7
[26.2-65.2]
13.2
[6.9-19.6]
27.5
[16.5-38.6]
22.3
[12.9-31.7]
21.8
[12.9-30.8]
38.8
[28.7-48.8]
39.1
[28.5-49.7]
7.7
[-1.7-17.2]
1.4
[0.3-2.4]
1.5
[0.5-2.5]
1.4
[0.3-2.4]
1.6
[0.5-2.7]
1.5
[0.5-2.5]
1.5
[0.5-2.5]
2.4
[0.6-4.2]
1.6
[0.6-2.6]
9.3
[2.3-16.2]
22.2
[15.3-29.1]
13.3
[5.2-21.3]
17.8
[9.1-26.5]
25.6
[11.6-39.5]
14.3
[7.3-21.3]
15.0
[8.1-21.9]
15.2
[6.4-23.9]
16.4
[10.4-22.4]
0.8
[0.2-1.5]
1.0
[0.2-1.7]
0.6
[0.2-1.1]
0.5
[-0.0-1.1]
0.2
[0.1-0.4]
0.2
[0.1-0.4]
52.6
[45.7-59.5]
32.2
[24.6-39.8]
51.4
[41.1-61.6]
4.0
[0.2-7.7]
3.7
[-1.0-8.3]
3.8
[-0.8-8.5]
▌pg. 55
Family and Medical Leave in 2012: Final Report
Worksites’ perception of the helpfulness
of the following FMLA provisions
Advance notice of foreseeable leave
Transfer to an alternative position
Medical re-certification
Very helpful
% [95% CI]
23.1
[14.9-31.3]
7.5
[2.9-12.0]
17.7
[8.7-26.7]
19.5
[11.7-27.3]
12.2
[5.5-19.0]
13.8
[5.7-21.9]
Somewhat
helpful
% [95% CI]
26.2
[18.1-34.2]
26.5
[17.5-35.5]
26.5
[14.2-38.7]
23.4
[13.3-33.5]
17.8
[11.4-24.1]
14.5
[7.0-21.9]
The fitness-for-duty certification for
employees
Certification of leave for a reason related to
the deployment of a military service member
Certification of a serious injury or illness of a
military service member
Unweighted N
Source: Worksite Survey Q51.
Sample: Asked of worksites that self-report that they are covered by the FMLA.
Abt Associates Inc.
Neither
% [95% CI]
12.7
[5.8-19.6]
15.8
[9.6-21.9]
14.0
[7.1-21.0]
18.1
[6.3-29.8]
15.0
[9.0-21.1]
15.3
[6.6-24.1]
Somewhat
unhelpful
% [95% CI]
0.9
[0.3-1.5]
0.6
[0.3-1.0]
0.3
[0.1-0.6]
0.6
[0.2-1.0]
1.2
[-0.1-2.6]
0.5
[0.0-0.9]
988
Very
unhelpful
% [95% CI]
0.4
[0.1-0.6]
2.2
[-0.4-4.8]
0.2
[0.0-0.4]
0.4
[0.1-0.7]
0.2
[0.0-0.3]
0.2
[0.0-0.4]
N/A
% [95% CI]
35.1
[25.2-44.9]
45.5
[35.0-56.0]
39.7
[29.7-49.8]
34.6
[24.4-44.8]
51.7
[43.0-60.3]
54.0
[43.9-64.2]
DK/refused
% [95% CI]
1.7
[0.5-2.9]
1.9
[0.7-3.1]
1.5
[0.5-2.6]
3.5
[-1.1-8.1]
2.0
[0.7-3.2]
1.7
[0.6-2.8]
▌pg. 56
Family and Medical Leave in 2012: Final Report
Finally, the Worksite Survey asked covered worksites about their perceptions of changes in costs of
complying with the FMLA over the years (Exhibit 3.3.8). 28 Half of workers work at 50/75 worksites
that report that the administrative costs of complying are rising (49.9%). Similarly, two out of five
workers work at worksites that report that the cost of continuing benefits (presumably health benefits)
for workers on leave has increased (39.2% workers work at these worksites). In addition, a third of
worksites report that hiring and training costs related to the FMLA have increased (36.4%).
28
Specifically, Worksite Survey Q49 asks, “Over the years, has complying with the FMLA increased,
decreased, or not changed?”
Abt Associates Inc.
▌pg. 57
Family and Medical Leave in 2012: Final Report
Exhibit 3.3.8 Changes in covered worksites’ costs of complying with FMLA over the years
Change in complying with different
Increased
Decreased
No change
aspects of FMLA over the years
% [95% CI]
% [95% CI]
% [95% CI]
50/75 worksites, weighted by employees at worksite
Administrative costs
49.9
0.2
44.9
[33.2-66.5]
[-0.1-0.5]
[28.0-61.8]
Cost of continuing benefits during
39.2
0.3
50.8
leave
[22.8-55.5]
[-0.2-0.8]
[34.1-67.5]
Hiring/training costs
36.4
0.2
57.8
[19.8-53.0]
[-0.1-0.4]
[41.5-74.1]
Other costs
20.5
0.2
10.2
[4.2-36.8]
[-0.1-0.5]
[4.3-16.1]
Any other costs
9.8
0.0
10.6
[-5.1-24.6]
[0.0-0.0]
[4.7-16.5]
Unweighted N
808
All covered worksites, weighted by employees at worksite
Administrative costs
48.6
0.2
46.5
[33.6-63.5]
[-0.1-0.4]
[31.4-61.6]
Cost of continuing benefits during
39.0
0.3
51.7
leave
[24.4-53.6]
[-0.2-0.8]
[36.8-66.6]
Hiring/training costs
35.9
0.1
58.4
[20.8-51.0]
[-0.1-0.4]
[43.9-72.9]
Other costs
18.6
0.2
9.4
[3.8-33.4]
[-0.1-0.5]
[4.4-14.4]
Any other costs
8.8
0.0
9.7
[-4.5-22.1]
[0.0-0.0]
[4.7-14.7]
Unweighted N
988
50/75 worksites, weighted by worksite
Administrative costs
30.4
0.7
65.3
[21.2-39.5]
[-0.4-1.8]
[56.0-74.6]
Cost of continuing benefits during
28.2
0.2
67.0
leave
[19.5-37.0]
[-0.1-0.5]
[58.0-76.0]
Hiring/training costs
20.9
0.1
74.4
[12.2-29.5]
[-0.1-0.4]
[65.9-82.9]
Other costs
10.3
0.2
7.9
[0.2-20.4]
[-0.1-0.5]
[3.6-12.1]
Any other costs
1.5
0.0
8.2
[0.1-3.0]
[0.0-0.0]
[3.8-12.5]
Unweighted N
808
All covered worksites, weighted by worksite
Administrative costs
31.5
0.2
65.9
[20.4-42.5]
[-0.1-0.6]
[55.3-76.6]
Cost of continuing benefits during
31.7
0.1
65.4
leave
[24.7-38.7]
[-0.0-0.2]
[58.5-72.3]
Hiring/training costs
24.8
0.1
70.6
[14.8-34.8]
[-0.0-0.1]
[61.1-80.0]
Other costs
4.1
0.1
3.8
[0.2-8.1]
[-0.0-0.2]
[2.1-5.5]
Any other costs
0.7
0.0
3.9
[0.1-1.3]
[0.0-0.0]
[2.2-5.7]
Unweighted N
988
Source: Worksite Survey Q49.
Sample: Asked of worksites that self-report that they are covered by the FMLA.
Abt Associates Inc.
DK/refused
% [95% CI]
5.1
[1.3-8.8]
9.7
[4.0-15.5]
5.6
[2.0-9.3]
69.0
[52.7-85.4]
79.7
[64.7-94.6]
4.8
[1.4-8.1]
9.0
[3.9-14.1]
5.5
[2.2-8.9]
71.8
[57.1-86.5]
81.5
[68.1-94.9]
3.7
[1.2-6.2]
4.6
[1.8-7.4]
4.6
[1.7-7.5]
81.6
[72.2-91.1]
90.3
[85.3-95.3]
2.4
[1.0-3.7]
2.8
[1.4-4.3]
4.6
[1.1-8.1]
92.0
[87.6-96.4]
95.4
[93.4-97.3]
▌pg. 58
Family and Medical Leave in 2012: Final Report
4. Employees’ Leave Taking Practices
This chapter presents results on leave taken for family or medical reasons. Specifically, the chapter
presents findings on prevalence of leave taken in the last year (or 18 months) for an FMLA-covered
reason, the reasons for and frequency of leave taking, duration of leave taken, and reasons why leave
ended. Throughout, our discussion reports leave taking among both “eligible” employees (i.e.,
eligible employees at covered worksites) and “ineligible” employees (i.e., employees at uncovered
worksites, and employees at covered sites that do not meet the employee count, tenure, or hours
requirements) based on our imputation of employees’ eligibility (see discussion in Section 2.2).
In reviewing the following discussion, it is crucial to understand the various reference periods used in
the tabulations. After careful consideration, the 2012 survey changed the primary reference period
from that used previously. The 2000 survey had used an 18-month reference period (i.e., it asked
about number and details of leave taken in the past 18 months). 29 After consultation with DOL, we
decided that a 12-month reference period produced more easily interpretable results. (The details of
this design decision are discussed in the Methodology Report). Consistent with this decision, the
primary profile of leave taking practices in this chapter uses a 12-month period.
Another change between the two surveys concerned which specific leave was referenced in the
extended battery of questions on leave taking. In the 2000 survey, the longest leave in the 18-month
period was selected for more detailed questions. This approach has the effect of under-reporting
intermittent leave, which tends to be of short duration. Given increased interest in intermittent leave
(see the 2007 Report on the RFI) and after consultation with DOL, we opted to gather additional
detail on the most recent leave in the 12-month period. Since under reasonable assumptions (in
particular, no seasonality), the most recent leave yields a random sample of all leave episodes, this
reference period provides an improved opportunity to gain insight into the use of intermittent leave.
To allow some comparisons to the 2000 research, the 2012 survey also included some questions with
an 18-month reference period and some questions about the longest leave. Thus, when we want to
compare 2012 results to earlier results, we must use “longest leave in the past 18 months.” Therefore,
for some results on leave taken or needed, we report three sets of statistics: (i) for most recent leave in
the past 12 months (those with no leave in the past 12 months are dropped); (ii) for longest leave in
the past 12 months (again, those with no leave in the past 12 months are dropped); and (iii) for
longest leave in the past 18 months (those with no leave in the past 18 months are dropped). As we
discuss in this chapter, most people have only one leave in the past 12 months. Even for those who
have more than one leave, the most recent leave may be the longest. Finally, two-thirds of the time we
would expect the longest leave in the past 18 months to fall within the past 12 months. We would thus
expect answers across these three to be similar but not identical.
29
In referring to the reference period for the 2000 survey as “18 months,” we follow Cantor et al. (2001). As
they note, this description is not precise. The 2000 survey asked respondents to report leaves since January
1999 and the interviews took place July 2000 to September 2000, such that “the reference period covers an
18–20 month period” (Cantor et al., 2001, p. 2-1, fn. 5). The 2012 survey asked about “the last 18 months.”
Thus, even if underlying behavior had not changed, this difference in question wording alone would have
caused some of the 2012 rates to be lower than the 2000 rates.
Abt Associates Inc.
▌pg. 59
Family and Medical Leave in 2012: Final Report
With these technical considerations in mind, we turn to reporting results on leave taking. Section 4.1
presents the prevalence of leave taking. We then discuss the number of leave episodes (Section 4.2),
followed by the duration of the leave (Section 4.3). Section 4.4 considers the reason for taking leave.
Section 4.5 discusses intermittent leave. Finally, Sections 4.6 and 4.7 consider leave taken for a
qualifying FMLA reason from the worksite’s perspective.
As noted in Chapter 1, unless otherwise noted, when discussing results from the Worksite Survey we
focus on estimates weighted by the number of employees at the worksite (not weighted by worksite)
for 50/75 worksites (i.e., worksites that have 50 employees within 75 miles and are therefore large
enough to have covered employees).
4.1
Prevalence of Leave
Leave is not uncommon: 13.1% of our sample of those employed during the last year took leave in
the past 12 months, and 17.7% took leave in the past 18 months (see Exhibit 4.1.1 and Exhibit 4.1.2).
Slightly more than half (55.8%) of employees who took leave in the past 12 months are female (not
shown).
In addition to presenting the pooled results for all employees, Exhibit 4.1.2 also presents results
separately by imputed eligibility (see Section 2.2 for a discussion of our imputation methodology).
Rates of leave are higher among eligible employees (e.g., 15.9% vs. 10.1% in the past 12 months). In
Chapter 1, we noted that differences in outcomes between eligible and ineligible employees may be
due to the impact of the FMLA, but they may also be due to chance or to differences between eligible
and ineligible workers, such that differences in outcomes would be expected to be present even in the
absence of the FMLA. The differences in leave taking between eligible and ineligible employees
presented in Exhibit 4.1.2 are large enough to rule out chance (5.8 percentage point difference: 15.9%
vs. 10.1%; p<0.01).
Rather, this would suggest that the difference is attributable either to the impact of the FMLA itself,
or to systematic differences in the characteristics of the eligible and ineligible populations, or perhaps
to a combination of both. In exploring the underlying dynamics of this finding, it is important to
reiterate that eligible employees: (i) work for a covered employer; (ii) work in a worksite that satisfies
50/75 (i.e., 50 employees within 75 miles); (iii) satisfy the tenure requirement (12 months), and (iv)
satisfy the hours of service requirement (i.e., 1,250 hours in the last year; approximately 24 hours per
week).
In an effort to better understand the potential influence of these fundamental differences, we
compared the leave taking rate between eligible and ineligible employees who meet the tenure and
hours-worked requirements of FMLA (that is, one year and 1,250 hours) but do not work in a
worksite that satisfies 50/75 (see column labeled “Not 50/75, would be eligible” in Exhibit 4.1.2).
This effectively cut the previously observed eligible/ineligible difference of 5.8 percentage points by
nearly half, to 3.6 percentage points (15.9% vs. 12.3%). That is, after eliminating this critical
difference in the characteristics of the two populations, the leave taking rate among ineligibles rises to
12.3%, which is a significant difference relative to the 15.9% rate among eligibles (p=0.05). These
results suggest that at least a portion of the initially observed difference is attributable to the inherent
differences in the characteristics of the two populations and not the causal effect of the FMLA itself.
Additional study of the causes of the differences between the eligible and ineligible would be useful,
but is beyond the scope of this research.
Abt Associates Inc.
▌pg. 60
Family and Medical Leave in 2012: Final Report
Exhibit 4.1.1 Percent of employees who took FMLA qualifying leave in the past 12 months, by
eligibility
Exhibit 4.1.2 Employees who took leave in past 12 and 18 months for a qualifying FMLA
reason
“All other leave takers” subgroups
Eligible
and
All other
Not 50/75,
Not 50/75,
covered
leave
50/75,
would be
would not
All
employees
takers
ineligible*
eligible*
be eligible*
Leave taking
% [95% CI] % [95% CI] % [95% CI] % [95% CI] % [95% CI] % [95% CI]
Employees who took
13.1
15.9
10.1
6.3
12.3
10.6
leave in past 12 months
[11.9-14.3] [14.2-17.6]
[8.2-11.9]
[3.6-9.0]
[9.1-15.4]
[7.6-13.6]
Employees who took
17.7
20.9
14.1
9.7
15.6
15.9
leave in past 18 months
[16.2-19.2] [18.6-23.2] [12.0-16.2]
[6.4-13.1] [12.0-19.1]
[11.8-20.0]
Employees who are
2.7
3.1
2.3
1.0
1.5
4.1
currently on leave
[2.2-3.2]
[2.5-3.7]
[1.6-3.0]
[0.3-1.7]
[0.7-2.3]
[2.3-5.8]
Unweighted N
2,852
1,713
1,139
272
454
413
*I.e., imposing the FMLA 12 months and 1250 hours rules.
Source: Employee Survey A1, A2, A3.
Sample: All employees.
Abt Associates Inc.
▌pg. 61
Family and Medical Leave in 2012: Final Report
Exhibit 4.1.3 and Exhibit 4.1.4 presents leave rates over the past 18 months for the 1995, 2000, and
2012 surveys. 30 There is some evidence that rates of leave taking are up over time, particularly from
2000 to 2012. Among all employees, rates of leave taking over the past 18 months have increased
from 16.0% in 1995 to 16.5% in 2000 and 17.8% in 2012. However, these results are only weakly
statistically significant. 31
The rate of leave taking also increased among eligible employees: from 18.0% in 1995 to 17.1% in
2000 and 21.0% in 2012. The 2000 Report did not provide enough information (i.e., standard errors)
to compute statistical significance of this change. Additional study to understand the underlying
dynamics of this change would be particularly valuable in light of the numerous factors that could
potentially affect leave taking behavior in both positive and negative directions. Since the earlier
surveys, there have been changes in the FMLA regulations, changes in the composition of the
workforce, changes in the macro-economy, and changes in survey methods and weighting. This
exploratory analysis, however, is beyond the scope of this research.
30
The 1995 and 2000 surveys used an 18-month reference period. Therefore, we use the 18-month reference
period for comparison. Exhibit 4.1.1 and Exhibit 4.1.2 use the 12-month reference period. The 1995 and
2000 surveys did not ask about 12 months, so it is not possible to create comparable rates for that reference
period.
31
p=0.096 for 1995 to 2012, which is just slightly below the 10% cutoff, but rounds to p=0.100; p=0.18 for
2000 to 2012.
Abt Associates Inc.
▌pg. 62
Family and Medical Leave in 2012: Final Report
Exhibit 4.1.3 Rates of leave taken the past 18 months: 1995, 2000, and 2012*
Source: 2012 Employee Survey A1, A2, A3; 2000 Report Table A1-2.1 and Chapter 3.3.
Sample: All employees.
Exhibit 4.1.4 Rates of leave taking in the past 18 months: 1995, 2000, 2012
All
Eligible and covered employees
1995
2000
2012
1995
2000
2012
survey
survey
survey
survey
survey
survey
% [95%
% [95%
% [95%
% [95%
% [95%
% [95%
Rates of leave taking
CI]
CI]
CI]
CI]
CI]
CI]
Percent of employee
16.0
16.5
17.8
18.0
17.1
21.0
population
[14.5-17.5]
[15.3-17.7]
[16.3-19.3]
[N/A]
[N/A]
[18.7-23.3]
Unweighted N
N/A
2,558
2,852
N/A
1,625
1,713
Source: 2012 Employee Survey A1, A2, A3; 2000 Report Table A1-2.1 and Chapter 3.3.
Cells with “N/A” indicate that the data were not reported in the 2000 Report.
Sample: All employees.
Exhibit 4.1.5 reports how leave taking rates vary across demographic subgroups. This and all other
exhibits use a 12-month recall period unless otherwise noted. Thus, the entries have the following
interpretation: “Percent of individuals in <SUBGROUP> took leave in the last year.” The survey
fielding period was January through June 2012, so the reference period is approximately January
through June 2011. Confidence intervals are wide for subgroups, especially for smaller subgroups. As
a result, most differences are not statistically significant.
Abt Associates Inc.
▌pg. 63
Family and Medical Leave in 2012: Final Report
Women are a third more likely to take leave than men (14.9% vs. 11.4%; p<0.01). Households with
children are more likely to take leave than childless households (16.5% vs. 10.5%; p<0.01). There are
not strong (or statistically significant) differences by education or family income.
Exhibit 4.1.5 Rate of leave taking among employees who took leave in the past 12 months, by
demographic characteristics
Leave takers
All
Age:
18-33
34-49
50-82
Gender:
Female
Male
Education:
Less than high school graduate and high school graduate
Some college
College graduate and graduate school
Ethnicity:
Hispanic
Non-Hispanic
Race:
White
Non-white
Marital status:
Married
Not married
Region:
Northeast
South
Mid-West
Abt Associates Inc.
All
% [95% CI]
13.1
[11.9-14.3]
Eligible and
covered
employees
% [95% CI]
15.9
[14.2-17.6]
All other
leave takers
% [95% CI]
10.1
[8.2-11.9]
12.5
[10.2-14.9]
13.3
[11.5-15.1]
13.7
[11.9-15.5]
14.6
[10.5-18.8]
15.6
[13.1-18.1]
17.6
[14.9-20.4]
11.0
[7.7-14.3]
10.0
[6.7-13.4]
9.0
[7.0-11.0]
14.9
[13.1-16.7]
11.4
[9.9-12.9]
17.8
[15.2-20.3]
14.1
[11.7-16.5]
11.8
[9.5-14.2]
8.3
[6.3-10.4]
13.4
[11.4-15.4]
14.0
[11.8-16.3]
11.9
[9.9-13.8]
16.5
[13.1-19.9]
18.4
[14.6-22.2]
13.6
[11.1-16.1]
10.9
[8.2-13.6]
9.6
[6.9-12.4]
8.9
[6.1-11.7]
10.7
[7.5-13.8]
13.4
[12.2-14.7]
14.2
[8.7-19.8]
16.1
[14.3-17.8]
7.7
[4.2-11.1]
10.4
[8.5-12.3]
13.7
[12.4-15.0]
11.4
[9.2-13.6]
15.9
[14.1-17.8]
15.6
[12.2-19.1]
11.1
[9.2-13.0]
7.3
[4.2-10.4]
13.8
[12.3-15.4]
12.3
[10.6-13.9]
16.7
[14.5-18.9]
14.9
[12.3-17.5]
10.2
[8.0-12.3]
9.8
[7.4-12.3]
11.4
[9.1-13.7]
13.9
[11.9-15.9]
13.0
[10.6-15.3]
15.9
[12.1-19.6]
16.5
[14.2-18.8]
15.5
[11.7-19.3]
6.9
[4.5-9.2]
10.9
[7.7-14.2]
9.7
[6.4-13.0]
▌pg. 64
Family and Medical Leave in 2012: Final Report
Leave takers
West
Children in household:
0
1 or more
Income:
<$35,000
$34,000-$75,000
$>75,000
How paid:
Salaried
All others
Unweighted N
Source: Employee survey (S7, S8, D1-D8, D10-D11, ZIP).
Sample: Among those who took leave in the past 12 months.
4.2
All
% [95% CI]
15.2
[11.7-18.8]
Eligible and
covered
employees
% [95% CI]
16.9
[11.0-22.8]
All other
leave takers
% [95% CI]
13.5
[7.7-19.2]
10.5
[9.2-11.7]
16.5
[14.4-18.7]
13.1
[11.2-15.0]
19.4
[16.2-22.6]
7.6
[6.0-9.2]
13.2
[9.8-16.7]
14.2
[11.2-17.2]
14.4
[12.8-16.1]
13.8
[11.6-16.0]
15.2
[9.7-20.8]
17.6
[14.6-20.6]
17.2
[14.4-20.0]
13.6
[9.3-17.9]
10.1
[7.3-12.9]
8.0
[4.8-11.3]
13.8
[11.6-15.9]
13.1
[11.5-14.6]
2,852
15.6
[13.0-18.2]
16.1
[13.7-18.4]
1,713
9.5
[5.9-13.1]
9.5
[7.0-12.1]
1,139
Number of Leaves Taken for a Qualifying FMLA Reason
Section 4.1 considered the percentage of employees taking any leave. In this section, we discuss the
number of times leave was taken. Employees can take more than one leave in a year and for more
than one condition.
The Employee Survey asked leave takers, “For how many TOTAL reasons or conditions did you take
leave from work in the past year?” Under this response structure, multiple intermittent leaves for a
given condition (e.g., a weekly physical therapy appointment) would count as only one “condition.”
Exhibit 4.2.1 presents the distribution of the total number of times an employee took FMLA leave in
the past 12 months for different medical conditions. Most employees took no leave (86.1%). Among
those who took any leave, the modal number of times leave was taken is one (10.7% of employees),
while 3.1% of employees took more than one leave.
Abt Associates Inc.
▌pg. 65
Family and Medical Leave in 2012: Final Report
Exhibit 4.2.1 Distribution of number of leave episodes taken by employees for different
medical conditions in the past 12 months
Number of leaves taken for different medical conditions in
the past 12 months
0
1
2
3
4 or more
Unknown number of leaves taken
Unweighted N
Source: Employee Survey A4a.
Sample: All employees.
All
% [95% CI]
86.1
[84.9-87.3]
10.7
[9.7-11.6]
2.1
[1.6-2.6]
0.5
[0.3-0.7]
0.5
[0.3-0.7]
0.2
[0.1-0.3]
2,852
Eligible
and
covered
employees
% [95% CI]
83.7
[81.9-85.4]
12.5
[11.1-13.9]
2.5
[1.7-3.3]
0.6
[0.3-0.9]
0.6
[0.3-0.8]
0.2
[0.1-0.4]
1,713
All other
leave
takers
% [95% CI]
88.7
[86.8-90.7]
8.6
[7.0-10.3]
1.7
[1.0-2.3]
0.4
[0.1-0.6]
0.4
[0.0-0.7]
0.2
[0.0-0.4]
1,139
The 1995 and 2000 surveys asked about number of FMLA leaves in the past 18 months. Exhibit 4.2.2
compares the distribution of the number of FMLA leaves taken by employees for different medical
conditions for this time period. This comparison suggests that the number of leaves taken by those
taking any leave has remained fairly constant over time (the differences are neither large, nor
statistically significant).
Exhibit 4.2.2 Distribution of number of leaves taken by employees for different medical
conditions in the past 18 months: 1995, 2000 and 2012
1995
2000
% [95% CI]
% [95% CI]
1
73.8
75.2
[72.2-75.3]
[73.0-77.3]
2
16.3
14.5
[15.0-17.6]
[12.81-16.2]
3 or more
10.0
10.2
[9.0-10.9]
[8.7-11.6]
Unweighted N
1,172
1,229
2012 column does not include respondents who answered “don’t know” or refused (1.1%).
Source: 2012 Employee Survey A4, 2000 Report Table A2-2.1.
2012 Sample: Among employees who took leave in the past 18 months.
Number of leaves taken in past 18 months
2012
% [95% CI]
70.7
[67.7-73.8]
17.3
[14.7-19.8]
10.9
[8.7-13.0]
1,332
Exhibit 4.2.3 reports the distribution of different medical conditions for which leave was taken in the
past 12 months among leave takers only; that is, the minimum number of leaves is 1 (this differs from
the data presented in Exhibit 4.2.1, which included all employees). On average, leave takers took 1.5
leaves in the past 12 months, regardless of eligibility. Three-quarters of leave takers took leave for
only one condition (77.0%); about one-quarter took leave for two or more conditions (22.9%). Rates
are similar across eligible and ineligible employees.
Abt Associates Inc.
▌pg. 66
Family and Medical Leave in 2012: Final Report
Exhibit 4.2.3 Number of FMLA leave episodes taken in past 12 months
Eligible and
covered
All
employees
Number of leave episodes
% [95% CI]
% [95% CI]
Number of leaves taken for different medical conditions, per employee, in the past 12 months:
1
77.0
75.7
[73.0-81.1]
[70.2-81.3]
2
15.6
17.0
[12.3-19.0]
[11.9-22.1]
3
3.6
3.6
[1.8-5.4]
[1.7-5.4]
4
1.6
1.5
[0.4-2.9]
[0.4-2.5]
5+
2.1
2.2
[1.1-3.1]
[0.8-3.6]
Average
Average
[95% CI]
[95% CI]
Average number of leaves taken in past 12 months per
1.5
1.5
leave taker
[1.3-1.6]
[1.4-1.7]
Unweighted N
799
554
Source: Employee Survey A4a.
Sample: Among employees who took leave in the past 12 months.
4.3
All other
leave takers
% [95% CI]
79.3
[73.2-85.4]
13.2
[8.4-18.1]
3.7
[0.8-6.5]
1.9
[-1.2-4.9]
1.9
[0.4-3.4]
Average
[95% CI]
1.4
[1.2-1.5]
245
Duration of Leave
Having considered in Section 4.2 the number of FMLA leaves taken, in this section we consider the
total duration of leave taken. We present two analyses of leave duration that vary by how we treat
people who are on leave at the time of the interview (i.e., leave takers who are currently on leave).
The first analysis codes people who are on leave at the time of the interview by the length of the leave
to date. The second analysis proceeds from the assumption that on average, every leave in progress is
half-way through its duration. Consistent with this observation, the second analysis doubles the length
of leave in progress and treats that doubled duration as the completed duration. Neither approach is
perfect. We report both. In general, we prefer the second approach, as the first one clearly
underestimates the completed length of a leave.
Exhibit 4.3.1 presents the total length of the most recent leave in the past 12 months using both
estimating techniques. Using the first approach (i.e., length of leave among employees who are
currently on leave is the length of the leave to date), the average total length of the most recent leave
in the past 12 months is just over 5 weeks (27.7 days). The difference between eligible and ineligible
employees is neither large nor statistically significant. As expected, using the second approach (i.e.,
using double the length of the leave in progress), total leave duration is slightly longer (34.5 days vs.
27.7 days).
Exhibit 4.3.1 suggests that most leave is short. Using the second approach, nearly half of all leave
events last 10 days or less (42.4%); less than a fifth (17.2%) last more than 60 days. This distribution
is similar across eligible and ineligible employees (compared to the ineligibles, the eligibles have
slightly fewer leaves of 0-10 days and slightly more leaves of 11-40 days).
Abt Associates Inc.
▌pg. 67
Family and Medical Leave in 2012: Final Report
Exhibit 4.3.1 Total length of most recent leave in past 12 months
Most recent leave in past 12 months: Method 1*
Most recent leave in past 12 months: Method 2**
Eligible and
Eligible and
covered
All other leave
covered
All other leave
All
employees
takers
All
employees
takers
Most recent leave
% [95% CI]
% [95% CI]
% [95% CI]
% [95% CI]
% [95% CI]
% [95% CI]
0-10 days
43.8
41.5
48.1
42.4
39.2
48.1
[40.2-47.4]
[36.5-46.4]
[42.4-53.9]
[39.0-45.8]
[34.8-43.6]
[42.4-53.9]
11-40 days
32.5
34.9
28.3
29.7
33.2
23.2
[29.2-35.9]
[30.2-39.5]
[22.9-33.7]
[26.5-32.8]
[28.7-37.8]
[17.8-28.5]
41-60 days
9.5
11.3
6.3
10.7
11.6
9.1
[6.9-12.1]
[8.0-14.6]
[2.9-9.6]
[7.7-13.7]
[8.1-15.1]
[4.9-13.3]
60+ days
14.1
12.3
17.3
17.2
15.9
19.6
[10.8-17.4]
[8.8-15.9]
[11.7-22.9]
[13.9-20.5]
[12.3-19.5]
[14.0-25.2]
Average
Average
Average
Average
Average
Average
[95% CI]
[95% CI]
[95% CI]
[95% CI]
[95% CI]
[95% CI]
Average days
27.7
27.4
28.3
34.5
32.3
38.5
[25.2-30.2]
[24.5-30.2]
[23.7-33.0]
[30.7-38.3]
[29.0-35.6]
[29.3-47.7]
Unweighted N
861
606
255
861
606
255
* Method 1: Length of leave among employees who are currently on leave is reflected as the length of the leave to date.
** Method 2: Length of leave among employees who are currently on leave is imputed by doubling their reported length of leave.
Source: Employee Survey A3, A19.
Duration of leave was truncated at 2 months.
Sample: Among employees who took leave in the past 12 months.
Abt Associates Inc.
▌pg. 68
Family and Medical Leave in 2012: Final Report
Exhibit 4.3.2 compares the total length of the longest leave taken in the past 18 months across the
2000 and 2012 surveys. The data suggest that the incidence of longer leaves has increased sharply. In
2000, only 9.9% of leaves last 60 or more days; in 2012, 18.6% last 60 days or more. 32
Exhibit 4.3.2 Length of longest leave taken in the past 18 months in 2000 and 2012
1995
2000
2012
% [95% CI]
% [95% CI]
% [95% CI]
54.6
54.1
39.5
[N/A]
[N/A]
[36.2-42.7]
11-40 days*
28.1
26.8
30.4
[N/A]
[N/A]
[27.4-33.3]
41-60 days
8.0
9.2
11.5
[6.2-9.8]
[7.5-10.9]
[9.1-13.9]
60+ days
9.3
9.9
18.6
[7.8-10.8]
[7.7-12.1]
[15.5-21.8]
Unweighted N
1,172
1,229
1,301
* Categories were combined from the 2000 Report for 1995 and 2000.
Source: 2012 Employee Surveys A3, A19; 2000 Report Table A2-2.2.
Cells with “N/A” indicate that the data were not reported in the 2000 Report.
For 2012 data, duration of leave was truncated at 2 months. Length of leave among employees who are currently
on leave is imputed by doubling their reported length of leave.
2012 Sample: Among those with any leave taken in the past 18 months.
Length of longest leave taken in the past 18 months
0-10 days*
4.4
Reason for Taking Leave
Having considered the number of leaves (Section 4.2) and the length of leave (Section 4.3), Exhibits
4.4.1 and Exhibit 4.4.2 consider the reason(s) for taking leave. Unlike nearly all other exhibits, in
these exhibits we include non-qualifying FMLA reasons (e.g., a non-relative’s health condition).
The 2012 survey asked the reason for both the most recent leave and the longest leave in the previous
year. Nevertheless, these two responses usually refer to the same leave—most employees have only
one leave; even when there are two leaves, the most recent one is often the longest. With that caveat,
our discussion focuses on the most recent leave. More than half of all leave taken is for the
employee’s own illness (54.6%; Exhibit 4.4.2). Responses related to a new child (i.e., pregnancyrelated illness, pregnancy/maternity leave, miscarriage, caring for newborn/newly adopted child/new
foster child, bonding with newborn/newly adopted child) account for a little less than one-quarter of
all leave (21.1%). Other health conditions of a child, spouse, or parent account for about a fifth of all
leave (18.2%). Reasons cited for both most recent and longest leave in the past 12 months are similar
(as noted above, the two responses usually refer to the same leave).
32
Due to different groupings of length of leave in the 2000 Report, we do not compute the statistical
significance of this difference.
Abt Associates Inc.
▌pg. 69
Family and Medical Leave in 2012: Final Report
Exhibit 4.4.1 Reasons for most recent leave in the past 12 months
Source: Employee Survey A5.
Sample: Among those who took leave in the past 12 months.
Exhibit 4.4.2 Medical reasons for taking leave
Medical reason for taking leave
Own illness
Related to a new child
Parent's, spouse’s or child’s health condition
Other FMLA covered reason
Non-FMLA covered reason
Don’t know/refused
Most recent
in past 12
months
% [95% CI]
54.6
[49.5-59.7]
21.1
[16.6-25.5]
18.2
[15.5-20.9]
1.8
[0.5-3.0]
3.3
[1.7-5.0]
1.0
[0.0-2.0]
930
Unweighted N
Source: Employee Survey A5.
Sample: Among those who took any leave in the past 12 or 18 months.
Abt Associates Inc.
Longest in
past 12
months
% [95% CI]
54.0
[48.6-59.4]
23.3
[18.5-28.0]
16.9
[14.3-19.5]
1.8
[0.5-3.1]
3.2
[1.5-4.8]
0.9
[-0.1-1.9]
880
Longest in
past 18
months
% [95% CI]
52.3
[48.0-56.5]
23.3
[19.7-26.9]
18.4
[16.0-20.8]
1.5
[0.4-2.6]
3.4
[2.0-4.7]
1.1
[0.2-2.0]
1,332
▌pg. 70
Family and Medical Leave in 2012: Final Report
The Employee Survey did not ask respondents directly about their disability status or leave taken for
a disability. However, the survey did ask respondents about the nature of their health condition for
which they took leave (see Employee Survey A10):
What was the nature of the health condition for which you took this leave? Was it:
A one-time health matter, such as appendicitis or injury;
For treatment of an injury or illness that now requires routine scheduled care, such as
chemotherapy or physical therapy; or
An ongoing health condition that affects one’s ability to work from time to time, such as diabetes,
migraines, depression, or Multiple Sclerosis?
We would expect disability to be reported as an ongoing health condition. About half of all leave is
due to a one-time health matter, but nearly 40% is due to either an ongoing health condition, or an
injury or illness that requires routine scheduled care (38.0%=24.6%+13.4%; Exhibit 4.4.3). There are
no major differences between the most recent and longest leave.
Exhibit 4.4.3 Nature of health condition for taking leave
Nature of health condition
A one-time health matter
Injury or illness that now requires routine scheduled care
Ongoing health condition
Other
Don’t know/refused
Most recent
in past 12
months
% [95% CI]
45.9
[41.7-50.0]
13.4
[9.9-17.0]
24.6
[20.1-29.1]
15.2
[11.8-18.7]
0.9
[0.2-1.6]
753
Unweighted N
Source: Employee Survey A10.
Sample: Among those who took leave in the past 12 or 18 months.
Longest in
past 12
months
% [95% CI]
46.4
[42.2-50.6]
13.4
[9.9-16.9]
24.3
[19.6-29.0]
15.1
[11.4-18.7]
0.9
[0.1-1.6]
703
Longest in
past 18
months
% [95% CI]
44.3
[40.7-47.9]
15.5
[12.4-18.7]
24.0
[20.3-27.7]
15.4
[12.0-18.8]
0.8
[0.2-1.3]
1,058
Exhibit 4.4.4 explores how the nature of the health condition varies by for whom the leave was taken.
For a parent’s, spouse’s, or child’s health condition, scheduled care and ongoing health condition are
more common than a one-time health matter (9.0%=3.3%+5.7% vs. 6.0%). For own illness, they are
nearly as common (21.5%=7.3%+14.2% vs. 29.9%). For new child, they are rare (0.6%=0.3%+0.3%
vs. 20.4%). There is little difference in length of leave by nature of illness (Exhibit 4.4.5).
Abt Associates Inc.
▌pg. 71
Family and Medical Leave in 2012: Final Report
Exhibit 4.4.4 Nature of illness and medical reasons for most recent leave taken in the past 12 months
All leave takers
Eligible and covered employees
All other leave takers
Injury or
Injury or
Injury or
illness that
illness that
illness that
now
now
now
requires
requires
requires
routine
Ongoing
One-time
routine
Ongoing
One-time
routine
Ongoing
scheduled
health
health
scheduled
health
health
scheduled
health
care
condition
Other
matter
care
condition
Other
matter
care
condition
Other
% [95% CI] % [95% CI] % [95% CI] % [95% CI] % [95% CI] % [95% CI] % [95% CI] % [95% CI] % [95% CI] % [95% CI] % [95% CI]
7.3
14.2
6.6
33.2
7.2
13.0
5.8
24.2
7.6
16.2
7.9
[5.4-9.3] [10.3-18.0]
[4.3-8.8] [28.2-38.1]
[5.0-9.4]
[9.5-16.5]
[3.5-8.1] [17.8-30.7]
[3.8-11.4]
[8.8-23.6]
[3.4-12.3]
0.3
0.3
1.6
16.9
0.0
0.4
1.1
26.5
0.9
0.0
2.3
[0.0-1.0]
[0.0-0.8]
[0.0-3.2] [12.6-21.2]
[0.0-0.0]
[0.0-1.2]
[0.0-3.1] [19.0-34.0]
[0.0-2.8]
[0.0-0.0]
[0.0-5.3]
One-time
health
Medical reason for
matter
taking leave
% [95% CI]
Own illness (except
29.9
for new child)
[26.1-33.7]
Related to a new
20.4
child
[16.4-24.5]
Parent's, spouse’s
6.0
3.3
5.7
4.3
7.0
4.4
6.6
4.4
4.4
1.4
4.2
or child’s health
[4.6-7.5]
[1.9-4.7]
[4.4-7.0]
[2.9-5.8]
[4.7-9.3]
[2.2-6.5]
[4.8-8.5]
[2.7-6.2]
[2.1-6.8]
[0.2-2.6]
[2.1-6.2]
condition
Other qualifying
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
reason
[0.0-0.0]
[0.0- 0.1]
[0.0-0.0]
[0.0-0.0]
[0.0-0.0]
[0.0-0.0]
[0.0-0.0]
[0.0-0.0]
[0.0-0.0]
[0.0-0.3]
[0.0-0.0]
Unweighted N
484
107
179
105
335
74
125
74
149
33
54
Source: Employee Survey A5, A10.
Per skip patterns, anyone who answers A5 in (3-10) does not get asked about nature of their illness (A10). They are included in the table above as a one-time health matter.
Sample: Among those who took leave in the past 12 months.
Abt Associates Inc.
4.2
[1.4-6.9]
0.0
[0.0-0.0]
31
▌pg. 72
Family and Medical Leave in 2012: Final Report
Exhibit 4.4.5 Nature of illness and duration of most recent leave taken in the past 12 months
Injury or illness
that now
requires routine
scheduled care
% [95% CI]
37.3
[24.9-49.6]
38.8
[25.5-52.2]
7.3
[2.4-12.3]
16.5
[8.6-24.5]
Average
[95% CI]
33.4
[23.8-43.1]
100
One-time health
Ongoing health
matter
condition
Other
% [95% CI]
% [95% CI]
% [95% CI]
43.4
41.0
43.6
[38.2-48.5]
[33.3-48.8]
[31.9-55.3]
11-40 days
27.5
29.0
30.5
[23.2-31.8]
[20.1-37.8]
[19.7-41.4]
41-60 days
12.2
8.5
11.0
[8.1-16.3]
[4.0-13.1]
[2.9-19.1]
60+ days
16.9
21.5
14.9
[11.4-22.5]
[14.6-28.4]
[5.9-23.8]
Average
Average
Average
[95% CI]
[95% CI]
[95% CI]
Average days
33.8
36.8
37.0
[28.3-39.3]
[27.2-46.4]
[20.6-53.4]
Unweighted N
473
167
101
Source: Employee Survey A10, A19.
Length of leave among employees who are currently on leave is imputed by doubling their reported length of
leave. Duration of leave was truncated at 2 months.
Sample: Among those who took leave in the past 12 months.
Duration of most recent
leave
0-10 days
For the most recent leave, the overwhelming share of conditions require a doctor’s care (85.7%) and
about half of those requiring a doctor’s care also require an overnight stay in a hospital (46.9%;
Exhibit 4.4.6).
Exhibit 4.4.6 Leave taking that requires medical attention
Medical attention required
Condition required a doctor's care
Condition required an overnight stay at a
hospital
Unweighted N
Source: Employee Survey A11, A12.
Sample: Most recent leave in the past 12 months.
Most recent in
past 12 months
% [95% CI]
85.7
[82.3-89.2]
46.9
[43.2-50.6]
883
Longest in
past 12
months
% [95% CI]
87.1
[83.7-90.6]
47.9
[44.1-51.8]
833
Longest in past 18
months
% [95% CI]
86.2
[83.6-88.8]
49.9
[46.9-52.9]
1,255
For about two-fifths of leave incidents, a second household member also took leave (40.4%; Exhibit
4.4.7). About two-thirds of such dual leave instances are related to a new child (61.8% for most recent
leave); about a fifth are due to own illness (16.3%), and another fifth are due to illness of a close
relative (20.5%).
Abt Associates Inc.
▌pg. 73
Family and Medical Leave in 2012: Final Report
Exhibit 4.4.7 Other household members’ leave taking behavior for most recent leave and
longest leave
Other household members’ leave taking behavior
Most recent
in past 12
months
% [95% CI]
40.4
[30.1-50.7
Longest in
past 12
months
% [95% CI]
Respondents who had household member who took leave for
46.9
the same reason
[36.1-57.7]
Reason for leave among respondents who had household member take leave for same reason:
Own illness
16.3
23.2
[4.6-28.0]
[7.3-39.2]
Related to a new child
61.8
60.5
[44.4-79.2]
[42.9-78.1]
Parent's, spouse’s or child’s health condition
20.5
15.0
[9.2-31.8]
[6.4-23.7]
Address issue of military member's deployment
1.4
1.2
[-1.4-4.1]
[-1.2-3.7]
Don’t know/refused
0.0
0.0
[0.0-0.0]
[0.0-0.0]
Unweighted N
158
152
Source: Employee Survey A5, A19b.
Sample: Among those with any leave in the past 18 months.
Longest in
past 18
months
% [95% CI]
46.5
[37.8-55.3]
21.7
[9.6-33.8]
56.6
[42.6-70.6]
20.8
[11.5-30.2]
0.9
[-0.9-2.6]
0.0
[0.0-0.0]
222
Exhibit 4.4.8 presents the relationship of the other household member who took leave for the same
reason. When two household members took leave for the same reason, the other household member
was overwhelmingly a spouse (84.4%) with some leave by an unmarried partner (9.3%) or a parent
(4.3%).
Exhibit 4.4.8 Relationship of household member to employees who had other household
members take leave for the same reason
Relationship of household member who took leave for the
same reason
Spouse
Unmarried partner
Parent
Child
Sibling
Father- or mother-in-law
Other
Don’t know/refused
Unweighted N
Source: Employee Survey A19c.
Sample: Among those with any leave in the past 18 months.
Abt Associates Inc.
Most recent
in past 12
months
% [95% CI]
84.4
[72.5-96.3]
9.3
[-0.1-18.7]
4.3
[-3.6-12.2]
0.0
[0.0-0.0]
0.0
[0.0-0.0]
0.0
[0.0-0.0]
1.4
[-1.4-4.1]
0.6
[-0.6-1.8]
60
Longest in
past 12
months
% [95% CI]
89.9
[81.3-98.5]
8.3
[0.0-16.6]
0.0
[0.0-0.0]
0.0
[0.0-0.0]
0.0
[0.0-0.0]
0.0
[0.0-0.0]
1.2
[-1.2-3.7]
0.6
[-0.5-1.6]
64
Longest in
past 18
months
% [95% CI]
88.8
[80.9-96.6]
6.0
[0.0-12.0]
0.3
[-0.3-1.0]
0.3
[-0.3-0.9]
2.8
[-2.5-8.0]
0.5
[-0.5-1.6]
0.9
[-0.9-2.6]
0.4
[-0.4-1.2]
98
▌pg. 74
Family and Medical Leave in 2012: Final Report
4.5
Intermittent Leave
While the results presented in Section 4.3 suggest that there has been considerable use of the FMLA
for such extended leave, more recently there has also been considerable concern by some worksites
that employees use the FMLA for much shorter leave—a day or a few hours. Shorter leave is often
part of a broader pattern of “intermittent leave” for chronic medical conditions (e.g., a regular
chemotherapy session or occasional bouts of asthma or migraine headaches).
Shorter leaves have been a focus of some of the ongoing discussion related to the FMLA. The
comments of the National Association of Manufacturers (as quoted in the preamble to the 2008
FMLA Regulations, 73 FR 67934, 68071) are representative:
[A]s currently interpreted by DOL, the FMLA has become the single largest source of
uncontrolled absences and, thus, the single largest source of all the costs those absences create:
Missed deadlines, late shipments, lost business, temporary help, and over-worked staff.
The Department’s 2007 Report on the RFI also summarized commenters’ concerns about these types
of absences (see 72 FR 35550, 35551-35552):
Commenters consistently stated that the FMLA is generally working well—at least with respect to
leave related to the birth or adoption a child or for indisputable “serious” health conditions.
Responses to the RFI substantiate that many employees and worksites are not having noteworthy
FMLA related problems. …[F]rustration by worksites about difficulties in maintaining necessary
staffing levels and controlling attendance problems in their workplaces as a result of one
particular issue—unscheduled intermittent leaves used by employees who have chronic health
conditions.
…
At the same time, a central defining theme in the comments involves an area that may not have
been fully anticipated: The prevalence with which unscheduled intermittent FMLA leave would be
taken in certain workplaces or work settings by individuals who have chronic health conditions.
This is the single most serious area of friction between worksites and employees seeking to use
FMLA leave.
We made several changes to the survey in order to improve understanding of intermittent leave.
Specifically, the Employee Survey asked the following questions to determine whether the leave was
taken intermittently:
•
A14: Did you take this time off continuously—that is, all in a row without returning to work—or
did you take leave on separate occasions?
•
If so, A15: How many separate blocks of time did you take off from work during this leave?
This differs slightly from the 2000 Employee Survey, which asked the following questions about
intermittent leave:
•
A5b: Sometimes people alternate between work and leave. That is, they repeatedly take leave for
a few hours or days at a time because of ongoing family or medical reasons. Have you taken this
kind of leave since January 1, 1999?
Abt Associates Inc.
▌pg. 75
Family and Medical Leave in 2012: Final Report
•
If yes, A5c: Was this kind of leave less than half, about half, or more than half of all the time you
spent on family or medical leave since January 1, 1999?
In addition to explicitly asking whether leave was continuous or intermittent (A14), the 2012
Employee Survey asked for the specific number of times leave was taken, rather than the more
general categories asked in 2000 (see Chapter 3 of the Methodology Report for more detail on the
changes to the 2012 surveys from 2000). This change allowed us to better understand the number of
leave episodes among intermittent leave takers.
The survey results do not indicate that intermittent leave is common. Overall, 3.2% of the sample
reports taking intermittent leave; they represent 24.2% of all leave takers who took leave in the past
12 months (Exhibit 4.5.1). Among those taking intermittent leave, the median (i.e., the midpoint of
the distribution) number of leaves is 3, but the mean is 4.9 (i.e., a small number of workers take leave
a large number of times). Exhibit 4.5.1 presents the distribution of the number of leave events among
intermittent leave takers. Consistent with the mean being higher than the median, a small number of
people have multiple leave incidents; 17.8% of leave takers had seven or more separate leaves for the
same condition in the last year. The number of intermittent leave episodes is similar for eligible and
non-eligible leave takers.
Exhibit 4.5.1 Prevalence of intermittent leave for most recent leave in past 12 months
Intermittent leave taking
Percent of all leave taken that was intermittent
2 leaves
3 leaves
4 leaves
5 leaves
6 leaves
7+ leaves
DK/refused
All
% [95% CI]
24.2
[19.6-28.7]
35.1
[26.5-43.7]
20.2
[12.3-28.2]
10.2
[5.3-15.2]
8.2
[3.2-13.2]
5.2
[2.0-8.4]
17.8
[10.9-24.7]
5.7
[2.8-8.6]
Average
[95% CI]
4.9
[4.1-5.7]
896
Eligible and
covered
employees
% [95% CI]
22.9
[19.0-26.9]
32.9
[23.5-42.3]
20.9
[14.0-27.8]
9.1
[4.6-13.6]
9.8
[1.9-17.6]
6.5
[1.8-11.1]
18.3
[10.1-26.5]
4.9
[1.8-8.0]
Average
[95% CI]
4.8
[4.1-5.6]
623
All other
leave takers
% [95% CI]
26.3
[17.4-35.1]
38.2
[22.8-53.6]
19.3
[1.9-36.7]
11.9
[1.8-21.9]
6.0
[1.2-10.7]
3.4
[-0.3-7.1]
17.2
[6.6-27.9]
6.8
[0.0-13.7]
Average
[95% CI]
5.0
[3.5-6.6]
273
Average number of separate leaves for the same
condition, among those taking intermittent leave
Unweighted N
Source: Employee Survey A14, A15.
Sample: Among those with any leave in the past 12 months who took leave on separate occasions.
In 2012, 26.0% of employees who took leave in the past 18 months took intermittent leave at least
once, versus 27.8% [24.4+31.2/2] in 2000 (2012 results not shown; 2000 results from Table A1-2.8 in
the 2000 report).
Abt Associates Inc.
▌pg. 76
Family and Medical Leave in 2012: Final Report
Exhibit 4.5.2 displays the length of the most recent leave among intermittent leave takers. Exhibit
4.5.3 provides more detail. Unlike concerns voiced by some employers about excessive use of very
short leave (i.e., a day or less), Exhibit 4.5.3 suggests that leave of a day or less occurs less than 2%
of the time (1.0%+0.5%). Rather, nearly three-quarters (73.4%) of the most recent leave among
intermittent leave takers is 6 or more days. These results are consistent regardless of the leave taker’s
eligibility.
Exhibit 4.5.2 Most recent length of intermittent leave
Abt Associates Inc.
▌pg. 77
Family and Medical Leave in 2012: Final Report
Exhibit 4.5.3 Most recent length of intermittent leave among those taking intermittent leave
Most recent length of leave
Length:
<1 day
1 day
2-3 days
4-5 days
6+ days
Currently on leave
All
% [95% CI]
1.0
[-0.4-2.4]
0.5
[-0.5-1.4]
8.7
[4.7-12.7]
16.4
[9.9-22.9]
73.4
[65.9-80.9]
6.2
[3.0-9.3]
260
Eligible and
covered
employees
% [95% CI]
1.7
[-0.7-4.1]
0.8
[-0.8-2.4]
6.7
[2.9-10.5]
17.2
[8.4-26.0]
73.6
[63.6-83.5]
9.0
[4.0-14.0]
178
Unweighted N
Source: Employee Survey A3, A14, A15, A16, A17.
Sample: Among those with any leave in the past 12 months who took intermittent leave.
All other
leave takers
% [95% CI]
0.0
[0.0-0.0]
0.0
[0.0-0.0]
11.6
[2.7-20.6]
15.2
[6.6-23.9]
73.1
[61.0-85.3]
2.1
[-2.1-6.4]
82
Exhibit 4.5.4 tabulates the medical reasons for intermittent leave. Note that, for this exhibit, we
include non-qualifying FMLA reasons (e.g., other relative’s health condition) to show the small
percentage of leave takers who would not be eligible for FMLA. Compared to all leave (Exhibit
4.4.2), intermittent leave is more common for caring for someone else’s medical condition (a parent,
spouse, or child; 41.6% vs. 18.2%), but less common for an own medical condition (39.8% vs.
54.6%) or for a new child (16.7% vs. 21.1%).
Exhibit 4.5.4 Reasons for taking intermittent leave
Most recent
Longest in
Longest in past 18 months
in past 12
past 12
Medical reason among those taking
months
months
2012 survey
2000 survey
intermittent leave
% [95% CI]
% [95% CI]
% [95% CI]
% [95% CI]
Own illness
39.8
41.0
40.8
35.1
[31.3-48.3]
[32.3-49.7]
[32.1-49.5]
[27.6-42.6]
Related to a new child*
16.7
16.8
16.8
18.1
[6.8-26.7]
[6.9-26.8]
[6.8-26.7]
[N/A]
Parent's, spouse’s or child’s health
41.6
40.4
40.6
46.7
condition
[33.2-50.0]
[32.8-48.0]
[33.1-48.2]
[N/A]
Other relative's health condition
0.1
0.1
0.1
N/A
[-0.1-0.3]
[-0.1-0.3]
[-0.1-0.3]
Address issue of military member's
1.7
1.7
1.7
N/A
deployment
[-0.9-4.3]
[-0.9-4.4]
[-0.9-4.3]
Unweighted N
260
258
260
250
* For 2000, this includes care for newborn, newly adopted, or newly placed foster child, and maternity-related
disability.
Source: 2012 Employee Survey B6; 2000 Report Table A1-2.12.
Cells with “N/A” indicate that the data were not reported in the 2000 Report.
2012 Sample: Among those with any leave in the past 12 months who took leave on separate occasions. 1995
and 2000 surveys reflect leave taken in the past 18 months.
Exhibit 4.5.5 presents the nature of the health conditions for intermittent leave and compares them to
the reasons for the most recent and longest leave in the past 12 months, and also presents the longest
Abt Associates Inc.
▌pg. 78
Family and Medical Leave in 2012: Final Report
leave in the past 18 months. Compared to all leave, as would be expected, intermittent leave is more
common for ongoing health conditions (40.0% vs. 24.6%; see Exhibit 4.4.3) and an injury or illness
requiring routine scheduled care (18.7% vs. 13.4%), but less common for a one-time health matter
(20.2% vs. 45.9%).
Exhibit 4.5.5 Nature of health conditions for intermittent leave
Health condition
A one-time health matter
Injury or illness that now requires routine scheduled care
Ongoing health condition
Other
Don’t know/refused
Most recent
in past 12
months
% [95% CI]
20.2
[13.6-26.8]
18.7
[12.0-25.4]
40.0
[32.0-48.0]
20.7
[12.4-29.1]
0.4
[-0.4-1.2]
Longest in
past 12
months
% [95% CI]
20.5
[13.4-27.7]
21.4
[13.5-29.2]
37.4
[28.9-45.9]
20.1
[11.5-28.7]
0.6
[-0.3-1.4]
240
Longest in
past 18
months
% [95% CI]
20.6
[13.4-27.7]
21.3
[13.5-29.1]
37.6
[29.1-46.1]
20.0
[11.5-28.6]
0.6
[-0.3-1.4]
242
Unweighted N
242
Source: Employee Survey B11.
Sample: Among those with any leave in the past 12 months who took leave on separate occasions.
4.6
Leave for a Qualifying FMLA Reason at Covered Worksites
The previous sections present results on leave patterns from the Employee Survey. We now turn to
results on leave patterns from the Worksite Survey for covered worksites. (We defer discussion of
results on leave at uncovered worksites until the next section). As discussed at the beginning of this
chapter, unless otherwise noted, when discussing results from the Worksite Survey, we focus on
estimates weighted by the number of employees at the worksite (not weighted by worksite) for 50/75
worksites (i.e., worksites that have 50 employees within 75 miles and are, therefore, large enough to
have covered employees).
We find that 76.9% of employees work at 50/75 worksites that report employees taking leave for a
qualifying FMLA reason (weighted by employees). Weighting by number of employees, these
worksites report that 9.8% of employees take leave for a qualifying reason. More than half of
worksites report that an employee has not returned after taking FMLA leave (58.4%); among these
worksites, 7.4% of employees choose not to return after taking leave. Finally, worksites report that
among employees taking leave, the average number of leaves is 1.3.
The 2000 Report showed that 58.3% (55.3+61.3/2) of covered worksites that had any leave by
employees for a qualifying FMLA reason in 2000, which was similar to 1995 (59.5%; [56.4+62.6/2];
see Tables A1-3.1 and A1-3.9 in the 2000 report).
Abt Associates Inc.
▌pg. 79
Family and Medical Leave in 2012: Final Report
Exhibit 4.6.1 Use of FMLA designated leave at covered worksites
Use of FMLA designated leave
Percent of covered worksites that had any
leave by employees for a qualifying FMLA
reason
Percent of employees at covered worksites
who took leave for a qualifying FMLA
reason in the past 12 months
Percent of worksites that report employees
not returning after taking FMLA leave
Among worksites that report employees
taking FMLA leave, percentage of
employees choosing not to return to work
Weighted by number of
employees
50/75
Covered
worksites
worksites
% [95% CI]
% [95% CI]
76.9
73.3
[62.9-90.9]
[60.6-85.9]
Weighted by worksite
50/75
Covered
worksites
worksites
% [95% CI]
% [95% CI]
64.7
41.8
[53.5-75.9]
[33.3-50.2]
9.8
[7.2-12.3]
9.4
[7.1-11.7]
4.3
[3.0-5.6]
8.3
[3.3-13.4]
58.4
[39.8-77.1]
7.4
[4.3-10.6]
58.1
[40.7-75.6]
9.2
[5.5-12.9]
17.2
[9.4-25.0]
24.8
[17.6-32.0]
22.7
[9.7-35.7]
42.4
[19.4-65.3]
Average
[95% CI]
1.3
[1.1-1.6]
Average
[95% CI]
1.7
[0.9-2.4]
Average
[95% CI]
2.1
[1.2-3.1]
808
988
Average
[95% CI]
Average number of leaves taken per
1.3
employee for a qualifying FMLA reason
[1.0-1.6]
(among employees taking any leave)
Unweighted N
808
988
Source: Worksite Survey Q19, Q20, Q23, Q24.
Sample: Asked of all worksites that self-report that they are covered by the FMLA.
Covered worksites were asked about the fraction of leaves taken for a qualifying FMLA reason that
are consistent with the worksite’s policy. Deviations from worksite policy might include not
providing enough notice of leave, or insufficient documentation. Replies to the 2006 Request for
Information suggest considerable concern in the worksite community about employees taking leave
that is inconsistent with the company’s policy. However, Exhibit 4.6.2 suggests that more than a third
of employees work at worksites that report all leaves are consistent with the employer’s notice policy
and another third report that most leaves are consistent with policy (35.0% and 41.2%, respectively).
Abt Associates Inc.
▌pg. 80
Family and Medical Leave in 2012: Final Report
Exhibit 4.6.2 Consistency of FMLA designated leave with covered worksites’ notice policies
Percent of leaves for a qualifying
FMLA reason that are consistent
with worksite's policy
All
Most
About half
Some
None
Don’t know/refused
Weighted by number of
employees
50/75
Covered
worksites
worksites
% [95% CI]
% [95% CI]
35.0
38.0
[15.6-54.4]
[20.2-55.8]
41.2
39.3
[25.5-57.0]
[24.8-53.9]
7.1
6.8
[3.4-10.9]
[3.3-10.3]
15.7
14.8
[2.8-28.5]
[2.7-26.9]
0.6
0.6
[-0.1-1.3]
[-0.0-1.2]
0.4
0.5
[-0.2-1.0]
[-0.1-1.0]
563
631
Weighted by worksite
50/75
Covered
worksites
worksites
% [95% CI]
% [95% CI]
66.6
71.1
[53.9-79.4]
[59.7-82.5]
22.6
17.8
[13.4-31.7]
[8.7-26.9]
4.6
3.2
[1.3-7.9]
[1.0-5.4]
5.2
2.9
[2.7-7.8]
[1.6-4.3]
0.9
4.3
[0.1-1.7]
[-1.9-10.5]
0.1
0.7
[-0.0-0.1]
[-0.5-1.9]
563
631
Unweighted N
Source: Worksite Survey Q25.
Sample: Asked of all worksites that self-report that they are covered by the FMLA.
Replies to the 2006 Request for Information also suggest considerable concern in the worksite
community about employees taking leave on an intermittent basis. Again focusing on 50/75 worksites
and weighting by number of employees, four in five employees work at worksites that report some
intermittent leave (82.3%; Exhibit 4.6.3); and a third of the leave taken was intermittent (29.0% of
employees work at these worksites). About one in six employees work at worksites that report that
more than half of the leave is intermittent (16.1%).
Abt Associates Inc.
▌pg. 81
Family and Medical Leave in 2012: Final Report
Exhibit 4.6.3 Characteristics of intermittent leave for a qualifying FMLA reason taken at
covered worksites
Weighted by number of
employees
50/75
Covered
worksites
worksites
% [95% CI]
% [95% CI]
82.3
80.5
[74.2-90.3]
[72.4-88.6]
29.0
29.3
[21.0-36.9]
[21.7-37.0]
Weighted by worksite
50/75
Covered
worksites
worksites
% [95% CI]
% [95% CI]
50.7
52.4
[29.8-71.7]
[34.6-70.2]
24.9
35.1
[9.9-40.0]
[20.5-49.7]
Leave characteristics
Percent of worksites that report any
intermittent leave among employees
Among employees who took leave, average
percentage of employees whose leave was
intermittent
Average percentage of granted leaves for a qualifying FMLA reason that were taken on an intermittent basis:
None
18.5
20.3
51.1
48.6
[10.2-26.9]
[12.0-28.6]
[30.0-72.1]
[30.8-66.3]
1-5%
15.3
14.6
20.6
16.3
[7.0-23.7]
[6.9-22.3]
[4.2-36.9]
[5.4-27.2]
6-10%
21.4
20.0
14.4
7.6
[-4.3-47.1]
[-4.1-44.2]
[-8.5-37.3]
[-4.6-19.9]
11-15%
2.8
2.6
1.2
0.6
[1.0-4.6]
[1.0-4.2]
[0.4-1.9]
[0.2-1.0]
16-20%
5.8
5.4
2.1
1.1
[-1.2-12.8]
[-1.1-11.9]
[0.1-4.2]
[0.1-2.2]
21-50%
19.8
18.6
6.8
3.9
[8.9-30.7]
[8.6-28.6]
[2.6-10.9]
[1.6-6.2]
More than 50%
16.1
18.3
3.7
21.7
[2.1-30.1]
[4.6-32.0]
[1.8-5.5]
[5.8-37.7]
Don’t know/refused
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
[-0.1-0.6]
[-0.1-0.5]
[-0.1-0.4]
[-0.0-0.3]
Unweighted N
541
608
541
608
Source: Worksite Survey Q21, Q21b.
Sample: Asked of all worksites that self-report that they are covered by the FMLA.
The Worksite Survey asked about the difficulty of administering intermittent leave. Responses
suggest considerable difficulty (Exhibit 4.6.4). Again focusing on 50/75 worksites and weighting by
employees, 27.5% of employees work at worksites that report “very difficult” and another 28.9%
work at worksites that report “somewhat difficult.” Results weighted by worksites (not by employees)
imply considerably less difficulty (8.0% of worksites reporting “very difficult” + 14.7% of worksites
reporting “somewhat difficult”). These results suggest that worksites with more employees have more
difficulty dealing with intermittent leave.
Abt Associates Inc.
▌pg. 82
Family and Medical Leave in 2012: Final Report
Exhibit 4.6.4 Ease or difficulty of administering intermittent leave for a qualifying FMLA reason
at covered worksites
Ease or difficulty
Very easy
Somewhat easy
Neither easy or difficult
Somewhat difficult
Very difficult
Don’t know/refused
Weighted by number of
employees
50/75
Covered
worksites
worksites
% [95% CI]
% [95% CI]
2.1
2.3
[0.4-3.8]
[0.6-3.9]
30.5
29.3
[1.1-59.9]
[1.0-57.6]
11.0
10.6
[2.3-19.6]
[2.4-18.8]
28.9
31.5
[10.0-47.7]
[12.4-50.5]
27.5
26.4
[8.0-47.1]
[7.8-45.0]
0.0
0.0
[0.0-0.0]
[0.0-0.0]
320
345
Unweighted N
Source: Worksite Survey Q21a.
Sample: Asked of all worksites that self-report that they are covered by the FMLA.
Weighted by worksite
50/75
Covered
worksites
worksites
% [95% CI]
% [95% CI]
4.4
18.8
[0.8-8.0]
[0.4-37.3]
57.7
30.8
[28.7-86.7]
[5.8-55.7]
15.2
9.0
[3.1-27.3]
[4.0-14.1]
14.7
36.9
[4.1-25.2]
[13.1-60.6]
8.0
4.5
[1.3-14.8]
[1.4-7.6]
0.0
0.0
[0.0-0.0]
[0.0-0.0]
320
345
Finally, among covered worksites that have shift workers who took leave intermittently, most 50/75
worksites allow their shift workers who take intermittent leave to rejoin mid-shift (49.7% of
employees work at these worksites, which is a majority after excluding the 20.8% of employees who
work at worksites that do not employ shift workers; Exhibit 4.6.5).
Exhibit 4.6.5 Policy on intermittent leave for shift workers at covered worksites
Policy on intermittent leave
Rejoin mid-shift
Require entire shift as leave
Depends on supervisor
N/A (no shift workers)
Don’t know/refused
Weighted by number of
employees
50/75
Covered
worksites
worksites
% [95% CI]
% [95% CI]
49.7
51.4
[30.0-69.4]
[32.4-70.3]
17.1
16.2
[-6.5-40.8]
[-6.1-38.5]
4.0
3.7
[1.7-6.2]
[1.6-5.8]
20.8
20.8
[3.7-38.0]
[4.6-37.0]
8.4
7.9
[-4.3-21.0]
[-4.0-19.9]
563
631
Unweighted N
Source: Worksite Survey Q22.
Sample: Asked of all worksites that self-report that they are covered by the FMLA.
4.7
Weighted by worksite
50/75
Covered
worksites
worksites
% [95% CI]
% [95% CI]
50.0
55.8
[29.0-71.1]
[38.6-72.9]
18.5
10.2
[-3.1-40.0]
[-2.0-22.3]
3.1
1.7
[1.5-4.7]
[0.8-2.6]
27.0
31.1
[8.2-45.9]
[15.9-46.4]
1.4
1.2
[0.3-2.4]
[0.1-2.4]
563
631
Leave for a Qualifying FMLA Reason at Uncovered Worksites
In contrast to the previous discussion that considered leave for a qualifying FMLA reason at covered
worksites, this section examines leave patterns among worksites not covered by the FMLA (Exhibit
4.7.1). According to results from the Worksite Survey, about a third of employees at covered
Abt Associates Inc.
▌pg. 83
Family and Medical Leave in 2012: Final Report
worksites take leave for a qualifying reason (37.5%). In those worksites, 5.8% of employees took
leave in the past year.
Exhibit 4.7.1 Use of leave for a qualifying FMLA reason at worksites not covered by FMLA
Weighted by
number of
employees
% 95% CI
37.5
[31.7-43.3]
5.8
[4.6-6.9]
824
Use of leave
Percent of uncovered worksites that had any leave by employees for a
qualifying FMLA reason
Percent of employees at uncovered worksites who took leave for a
qualifying FMLA reason
Unweighted N
Source: Worksite Survey Q2, Q3, Q58.
Sample: Asked of all worksites that self-report that they are not covered by the FMLA.
Abt Associates Inc.
Weighted by
worksite
% 95% CI
21.9
[16.6-27.1]
6.9
[4.7-9.2]
824
▌pg. 84
Family and Medical Leave in 2012: Final Report
5. Conditions of Leave Before, During and After Taking Leave
The previous chapter considered leave taken by employees in general. In this chapter, we consider
aspects of leave specifically related to the FMLA. Section 5.1 discusses notice required prior to leave,
and Section 5.2 discusses activities required before and during leave. Section 5.3 considers worksites’
policies with respect to pay and benefits while employees are taking leave for a qualifying FMLA
reason, and Sections 5.4 and 5.5 conclude with a discussion of returning to work after taking leave.
As noted in Chapter 1, unless otherwise noted, when discussing results from the Worksite Survey, we
focus on estimates weighted by the number of employees at the worksite (not weighted by worksite)
for 50/75 worksites (i.e., worksites that have 50 employees within 75 miles and are, therefore, large
enough to have covered employees).
5.1
Notice Prior to Leave
Under the FMLA, employees are required to give notice of foreseeable leave (Public Law 103-3, §
102(e)) and this was further clarified in the FMLA regulations at 29 C.F.R. 825.302. In response,
worksites are required to notify the employee whether the leave qualifies under the FMLA. See 29
C.F.R. § 825.300(d) and § 825.301. Employees are generally required to provide the maximum
possible notice to their employer. Less than a fifth (17.8%) of leave takers report not giving notice,
with not giving notice less common among eligible employees (14.9% vs. 22.3%; Exhibit 5.1.1).
Across eligible and ineligible employees, of those who give notice, the average notice is slightly more
than three weeks (22.7 days).
Exhibit 5.1.1 Notice given to worksites prior to leave
Notice given prior to leave
Percent who did not provide notice prior to leave
Mean number days of notice prior to taking leave
All
% [95% CI]
17.8
[14.7-20.8]
Average
% [95 CI]
22.7
[19.3-26.0]
Unweighted N
1276
Source: Employee Survey A42.
Sample: Asked of employees who took leave in the past 12 or 18 months.
Eligible and
covered
employees
% [95% CI]
14.9
[11.8-18.0]
Average
% [95 CI]
21.5
[17.4-25.5]
All other
leave takers
% [95% CI]
22.3
[16.5-28.1]
Average
% [95 CI]
24.8
[19.2-30.5]
864
412
Beyond the requirement to provide notice of the FMLA itself, employers are required to provide three
types of notice with respect to specific requests for FMLA leave (see 29 C.F.R. § 825.300): an
eligibility notice, a specification of (employee) rights and responsibilities, and a designation notice.
Exhibit 5.1.2 tabulates responses to questions about such notice requirements for covered worksites.
Almost all worksites report providing written guidance on coordination with existing leave policies
and how much leave has been taken (94.4% of employees work at these worksites), and almost as
many report providing written notice of leave taken that counted towards the FMLA’s annual limit
(82.5% of employees work at these worksites). Weighted by employees, more than half of employees
work at worksites that require employees to use paid leave concurrently with unpaid leave (56.7%),
and about a third (31.0%) work at worksites that report offering alternative work arrangements in
place of leave (which the employee may, but is not required to, accept).
Abt Associates Inc.
▌pg. 85
Family and Medical Leave in 2012: Final Report
Exhibit 5.1.2 Covered worksites’ FMLA notification practices, 2012 and 2000
2012
2012
2000
50/75 worksites
Covered worksites
Covered Worksites
Depends
Depends
Depends
on circumon circumon circumYes
stances
No
DK
Yes
stances
No
DK
Yes
stances
No
% [95% CI] % [95% CI] % [95% CI] % [95% CI] % [95% CI] % [95% CI] % [95% CI] % [95% CI] % [95% CI] % [95% CI] % [95% CI]
FMLA notification practices
Weighted by employees at worksite
Worksites that provide eligible
94.4
2.3
2.5
0.8
employees with written guidance on how [92.2-96.7]
[1.0-3.6]
[1.0-3.9]
[0.3-1.3]
the Act is coordinated with existing
leave and benefits policies
Worksites that provide eligible
82.5
8.8
7.5
1.3
employees with written notice of how
[72.0-93.0] [-1.2-18.7]
[3.8-11.1]
[0.5-2.1]
much of the leave taken was counted as
leave for a qualifying FMLA reason
Worksites that require eligible
56.7
25.1
17.7
0.5
employees to use their paid leave
[39.9-73.5] [12.4-37.8] [-1.0-36.3]
[-0.0-1.0]
before taking unpaid leave
Worksites that ever offer eligible
31.0
19.3
48.3
1.4
employees alternative work
[18.1-44.0] [11.5-27.1] [31.1-65.5]
[0.5-2.4]
arrangements instead of leave
Unweighted N
808
Weighted by worksite
Worksites that provide eligible
90.9
3.9
3.7
1.5
employees with written guidance on how [86.4-95.4]
[1.5-6.3]
[1.4-6.1]
[0.5-2.4]
the Act is coordinated with existing
leave and benefits policies
Worksites that provide eligible
81.7
6.6
5.7
6.0
employees with written notice of how
[70.9-92.6]
[3.4-9.7]
[2.9-8.4] [-3.3-15.4]
much of the leave taken was counted as
leave for a qualifying FMLA reason
Worksites that require eligible
50.6
31.0
13.3
5.2
employees to use their paid leave
[37.7-63.4] [14.7-47.2]
[0.1-26.5] [-4.1-14.5]
before taking unpaid leave
Worksites that ever offer eligible
29.0
33.3
31.1
6.5
employees alternative work
[16.3-41.8] [20.1-46.5] [20.2-42.1] [-2.8-15.9]
arrangements instead of leave
Unweighted N
808
Source: 2012 Worksite Survey Q44; 2000 Report Table A2-6.3.
2012 Sample: Asked of all worksites that self-report that they are covered by the FMLA.
Abt Associates Inc.
91.7
[88.5-95.0]
3.7
[1.7-5.6]
3.5
[1.9-5.0]
1.1
[0.6-1.7]
N/A
N/A
N/A
80.3
[70.6-90.0]
10.1
[1.0-19.2]
8.0
[4.6-11.4]
1.6
[0.7-2.4]
N/A
N/A
N/A
54.4
[39.0-69.7]
27.8
[15.3-40.3]
16.9
[0.2-33.6]
0.9
[0.3-1.5]
N/A
N/A
N/A
31.0
[19.6-42.4]
21.6
[13.4-29.8]
45.6
[29.6-61.5]
1.8
[0.8-2.8]
N/A
N/A
N/A
988
1,070
69.2
[61.2-77.1]
12.8
[5.6-20.1]
15.8
[7.4-24.3]
2.2
[0.9-3.4]
92.6
[89.1-96.1]
1.3
[0.5-2.1]
6.1
[2.9-9.3]
60.7
[52.3-69.0]
14.4
[5.4-23.4]
21.2
[12.3-30.2]
3.7
[-0.0-7.4]
82.3
[76.1-88.5]
2.7
[1.8-3.6]
15.0
[9.3-20.7]
40.6
[30.9-50.2]
12.9
[6.6-19.1]
43.4
[33.0-53.8]
3.2
[-0.4-6.8]
63.2
[49-77.4]
5.9
[2.7-9.1]
30.8
[16.7-44.9]
31.1
[23.4-38.7]
20.7
[12.0-29.5]
43.0
[32.9-53.0]
5.2
[0.7-9.8]
43.4
[32.9-53.9]
23.2
[10.9-35.5]
33.4
[19.5-47.3]
988
1,070
▌pg. 86
Family and Medical Leave in 2012: Final Report
5.2
Medical Certification and Recertification of Need for Leave
The FMLA statute allows worksites to require medical certification and recertification for those
taking leave (Public Law 103-3, § 103) and FMLA regulations at 29 C.F.R. 825.305–825.313
clarified those requirements. Employers are allowed to require that an employee provide medical
certification of the need for leave. Employees are required to pay the cost of obtaining an initial
medical certification and of recertification. An employer may request a second opinion, but the
employer pays. Finally, if the leave continues for an extended period of time, the employer may
require an updated certification.
Exhibit 5.2.1 tabulates (imputed) eligible leave takers’ responses to questions about their use of
various certification procedures and/or certification requirements. About half of leave takers report
that they were required to provide medical certification for their most recent leave (55.0%). If a
worksite doubts the validity of the certification, it may request a second or third opinion (Public Law
103-3, §103(c)). However, few leave takers report that their worksite required multiple doctor visits
for that certification 33 (6.34). Just under half of those required to get medical certification paid for it
themselves (45.6%); the others paid nothing out of pocket.
Exhibit 5.2.1 Medical certification and recertification requirements
Medical leave certification and recertification requirements
Employees whose employer required medical certification to take leave
Employees whose employer required multiple doctor visits (i.e., second or third
opinion) for medical certification
Employees who paid out of pocket for certification among employees whose
employer required medical certification to take leave
Employees whose employer required medical recertification to take leave
Employees’ who paid out of pocket for recertification among employees whose
employer required medical recertification:
Unweighted N
Source: Employee Survey A26, A30, A33, A35, A39.
Sample: Asked of employees who took leave in the past 12 or 18 months.
% [95% CI]
55.0
[51.7-58.2]
6.4
[4.0-8.7]
45.6
[40.7-50.4]
17.8
[15.2-20.4]
48.1
[40.2-55.9]
1,276
Worksites are also allowed to require that employees recertify their medical need for leave during the
time they are out “on a reasonable basis” (Public Law 103-3, § 103(e)). Less than a fifth (17.8%) of
leave takers report that they were required to get a medical recertification (Exhibit 5.2.1). Similar to
the findings on payment for certification, nearly half (48.1%) of leave takers whose worksite required
recertification paid out of pocket for the recertification.
Average time to get a medical certification (among those required to get one) was 3.9 hours (see
Exhibit 5.2.2). Average time to get both a certification and a recertification among those required to
get both was 4.7 hours.
33
Q30 of the Employee Survey asked leave takers, “Did your employer require multiple doctor visits—that
is, a second or third opinion—to obtain your INITIAL medical certification?”
Abt Associates Inc.
▌pg. 87
Family and Medical Leave in 2012: Final Report
Exhibit 5.2.2 Time spent by leave takers on medical certification and recertification
Average
Time spent
[95% CI]
Average time spent by leave takers to obtain medical certification, among leave
3.9
takers whose worksite required medical certification only (hours)
[3.2-4.7]
Average time spent by leave takers to obtain medical certification and medical
4.7
recertification, among leave takers whose worksite required both medical
[4.0-5.3]
certification and medical recertification (hours)
Unweighted N
1,276
Source: Employee Survey A26, A35, A41.
Responses limited to 2 days. If respondent reported taking no extra time off, they were assigned 0 hours.
Sample: Asked of employees who took leave in the past 12 or 18 months and whose worksites required medical
certification.
Among leave takers who were required to get a medical certification, only 6.9% report that their first
medical certification was rejected. About half the time the rejection was for insufficient information
(Exhibit 5.2.3).
Exhibit 5.2.3 Reason medical certification was not accepted
Reason
Insufficient information
Physician not accepted
Condition not accepted
Submission not considered timely
Other reason
Don’t know/refused
% [95% CI]
43.8
[26.7-60.8]
0.0
[0.0-0.0]
2.1
[-2.1-6.3]
7.4
[-3.4-18.2]
36.3
[20.9-51.7]
12.5
[0.3-24.6]
45
Unweighted N
Source: Employee Survey A28, A29.
Column may sum to >100% since respondent could select more than one category.
Sample: Asked of employees who took leave in the past 12 or 18 months and whose worksites required medical
certification.
The previous discussion documents the certification and recertification experience from the employee
perspective. We now turn to the worksite’s perspective. The Worksite Survey asked covered
worksites about their medical certification requirements. 34 Exhibit 5.2.4 shows that medical
certification is nearly universal (73.3% of employees work at worksites that always require medical
certification; another 16.9% work at worksites that require certification most of the time). About half
of employees work at worksites that report never contacting the health provider directly (48.4% of
employees work at these worksites). The revised 2008 regulations specify that an employer may
contact an employee’s health care provider, provided that the contact is made by a member of the
company’s human resources staff, a leave administrator, a management official, or a health care
34
As discussed in Chapter 2, 16.6% of all respondents to the 2012 Worksite Survey self-reported being
covered by the FMLA.
Abt Associates Inc.
▌pg. 88
Family and Medical Leave in 2012: Final Report
provider and that the contact complies with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act
(HIPAA) privacy regulations. However, under no circumstances can an employee’s direct supervisor
contact the employee’s health care provider under the FMLA (U.S. DOL, 2013c). Among worksites
that do contact a health provider, most use a member of their HR staff—which was permitted by the
2008 Regulations (63.0% of employees work at these worksites). Contact by the employee’s direct
supervisor—which would be inconsistent with the FMLA—is rare (0.2% of employees work at these
worksites). Almost all certifications are accepted as complete (92.9% of employees work at these
worksites). Approximately a fifth of covered worksites report never requiring medical recertification
(22.1% of employees work at these worksites). Among those that require recertification, about a third
require it every six months, about a third require it less frequently than every six months, and the final
third require it more frequently than every six months (42.4%, 20.0%, and 10.5% of employees work
at these worksites, respectively).
Exhibit 5.2.4 Medical certification practices at covered worksites
Weighted by employees at
worksite
Weighted by worksite
50/75
Covered
50/75
Covered
worksites
worksites
worksites
worksites
Medical certification practices
% [95% CI]
% [95% CI]
% [95% CI]
% [95% CI]
Frequency that worksite requires medical certification for FMLA designated leave:
Always
73.3
69.7
69.9
49.7
[55.8-90.7]
[54.6-84.8]
[57.0-82.8]
[39.7-59.6]
Most of the time
16.9
17.3
15.1
10.6
[-1.0-34.8]
[1.3-33.3]
[2.3-27.9]
[3.2-18.1]
Half the time
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.1
[-0.0-0.4]
[-0.0-0.4]
[-0.1-0.5]
[-0.0-0.2]
Sometimes
6.6
7.7
5.8
10.9
[0.6-12.5]
[2.2-13.3]
[3.0-8.7]
[6.4-15.4]
Never
1.6
3.6
3.6
24.6
[0.5-2.6]
[1.9-5.2]
[1.3-6.0]
[16.1-33.1]
Don’t know/refused
1.5
1.6
5.3
4.1
[-0.0-3.1]
[0.1-3.1]
[-4.0-14.6]
[-1.6-9.8]
Unweighted N
808
988
808
988
Frequency that worksite requires medical recertification for FMLA designated leave:
Less frequently than every 6 months
20.0
19.1
24.7
16.2
[12.1-27.9]
[12.2-26.0]
[15.1-34.3]
[8.1-24.3]
Every 6 months
42.4
40.3
12.4
15.3
[25.8-59.0]
[24.8-55.7]
[6.9-17.8]
[9.1-21.4]
More frequently than every 6 months
10.5
11.8
10.9
13.1
[5.7-15.4]
[6.3-17.3]
[5.6-16.2]
[6.7-19.5]
Never
22.1
23.1
41.2
42.4
[4.8-39.4]
[7.2-39.0]
[27.9-54.5]
[33.7-51.0]
Don’t know/refused
5.0
5.8
10.8
13.1
[2.5-7.6]
[2.9-8.6]
[0.9-20.8]
[4.5-21.7]
Unweighted N
782
925
782
925
Abt Associates Inc.
▌pg. 89
Family and Medical Leave in 2012: Final Report
Weighted by employees at
worksite
Weighted by worksite
50/75
Covered
50/75
Covered
worksites
worksites
worksites
worksites
Medical certification practices
% [95% CI]
% [95% CI]
% [95% CI]
% [95% CI]
Employees’ health providers are contacted as part of certification process (among employers that require
medical certification) :
Yes
7.6
7.6
8.1
9.6
[4.0-11.1]
[4.4-10.8]
[3.9-12.3]
[5.8-13.4]
No
48.4
49.8
57.4
59.7
[32.7-64.0]
[35.5-64.1]
[46.6-68.3]
[53.6-65.7]
It depends
43.2
41.5
28.7
24.7
[27.0-59.5]
[26.4-56.7]
[17.5-40.0]
[16.0-33.3]
Don’t know/refused
0.9
1.1
5.7
6.1
[0.1-1.6]
[0.2-2.0]
[-3.9-15.4]
[-1.7-13.9]
Unweighted N
782
925
782
925
Among worksites that contact employees' health providers as part of certification process, who makes the
contact:
A third-party verification company
7.1
7.0
5.3
4.4
[1.7-12.6]
[1.9-12.2]
[1.8-8.8]
[1.6-7.2]
HR personnel
63.0
62.3
80.9
56.9
[37.9-88.1]
[38.4-86.2]
[67.8-93.9]
[33.1-80.6]
Manager
1.2
2.9
4.4
15.7
[0.1-2.3]
[0.2-5.6]
[0.6-8.1]
[3.6-27.8]
Employees' direct supervisor
0.2
0.7
1.2
18.1
[-0.1-0.6]
[0.0-1.4]
[-0.8-3.3]
[1.7-34.5]
Someone else
28.5
27.1
8.2
5.0
[5.2-51.7]
[5.2-48.9]
[-1.5-18.0]
[-0.3-10.2]
Don’t know/refused
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
[0.0-0.0]
[0.0-0.0]
[0.0-0.0]
[0.0-0.0]
Unweighted N
351
407
351
407
Medical certifications accepted at worksite
92.9
90.3
94.1
75.1
as complete
[89.2-96.5]
[85.3-95.4]
[90.7-97.4]
[60.0-90.3]
Medical certifications that were returned
23.0
23.4
22.9
25.1
to employee to provide additional
[14.1-32.0]
[15.0-31.8]
[7.8-38.1]
[14.3-36.0]
information
Unweighted N
538
605
538
605
Source: Worksite Survey Q26, Q26a, Q34, Q35, Q36, Q37.
Note that the two questions on medical certification are separate questions, so will not necessarily sum to 100%.
Sample: Asked of worksites that self-report that they are covered by the FMLA.
As noted above, employees are to pay for the initial certification, but employers are required to pay
for second and third opinions. At 50/75 worksites, for initial certifications weighted by employees at
the worksite, 8.8% were paid for by the employer, 67.9% were paid for by the employee, and 30.0%
were paid for by the employee’s insurance (Exhibit 5.2.5). Patterns are similar for recertification and
certifications returned for insufficient information. Apparently inconsistent with the FMLA, worksites
report that nearly half of employees (49.0% weighted by employees) are required to pay for second
and third opinions (that is, second and third certifications). However, further review of the question
(Q. 39) suggests an alternative explanation. Some respondents may have interpreted the question to
refer to additional certifications needed (e.g., due to insufficient information or for recertification)
rather than limited only to second and third opinions.
Abt Associates Inc.
▌pg. 90
Family and Medical Leave in 2012: Final Report
Exhibit 5.2.5 Covered worksites’ payment for certification visits
50/75 worksites
Employee's
Employee
insurance
% [95% CI]
% [95% CI]
Payer for certification
Employer
Other
visits
% [95% CI]
% [95% CI]
Weighted by employees at worksite
Initial medical certification
8.8
67.9
30.0
1.2
[0.5-17.2]
[55.1-80.6]
[20.0-40.0]
[0.2-2.2]
Re-certification
10.4
69.3
24.5
1.0
[2.2-18.5]
[57.6-81.1]
[16.7-32.2]
[0.2-1.7]
Second or third certifications
25.2
49.0
22.7
2.3
[13.4-37.0]
[33.5-64.5]
[13.5-32.0]
[0.3-4.3]
Insufficient certification
5.9
60.7
23.3
9.3
correction
[0.7-11.1]
[44.2-77.2]
[13.6-33.0]
[-1.1-19.8]
Unweighted N
782
Weighted by worksite
Initial medical certification
8.3
59.6
48.1
1.2
[-1.5-18.1]
[43.3-75.9]
[29.3-66.9]
[-0.0-2.5]
Re-certification
16.3
53.4
44.1
0.8
[3.8-28.7]
[41.2-65.5]
[26.1-62.1]
[0.3-1.4]
Second or third certifications
22.1
46.6
37.4
1.2
[10.3-34.0]
[34.5-58.7]
[20.0-54.8]
[0.4-2.1]
Insufficient certification
3.4
56.9
38.6
3.9
correction
[1.4-5.4]
[38.1-75.7]
[20.9-56.3]
[0.6-7.2]
Unweighted N
782
Rows may sum to >100% since respondent could select more than one category.
Source: Worksite Survey Q39.
Sample: Asked of worksites that self-report that they are covered by the FMLA.
Abt Associates Inc.
Employer
% [95% CI]
Covered worksites
Employee's
Employee
insurance
% [95% CI]
% [95% CI]
Other
% [95% CI]
9.1
[1.4-16.9]
10.6
[3.1-18.2]
24.3
[13.5-35.1]
6.4
[1.5-11.3]
64.8
[52.3-77.3]
66.0
[54.4-77.5]
46.6
[31.9-61.4]
58.1
[42.6-73.6]
925
32.4
[22.3-42.5]
27.2
[19.2-35.2]
25.3
[16.1-34.4]
25.6
[16.1-35.1]
1.4
[0.4-2.3]
1.2
[0.4-1.9]
2.3
[0.5-4.1]
8.9
[-0.8-18.6]
15.7
[5.4-26.0]
19.9
[9.1-30.6]
22.9
[12.0-33.8]
9.9
[0.5-19.4]
41.9
[30.8-53.0]
38.1
[28.7-47.5]
31.1
[23.3-38.9]
44.9
[29.6-60.2]
925
48.8
[40.0-57.6]
46.2
[37.3-55.0]
42.1
[32.4-51.9]
40.1
[29.1-51.1]
3.5
[-0.9-7.9]
3.3
[-1.1-7.7]
3.3
[-1.1-7.6]
5.2
[0.4-9.9]
▌pg. 91
Family and Medical Leave in 2012: Final Report
5.3
Pay and Benefits While Taking Leave
As reported in Section 2.4 and repeated in the first row of Exhibit 5.3.1, pooling all worksites—
covered and uncovered—almost all employees work at worksites that allow employees to take leave
for any qualifying FMLA reason (96.2%). Rates are higher at 50/75 worksites than at uncovered
worksites (99.6% vs. 89.1%). The FMLA requires that if an employer has written policies, those
policies must include the FMLA. Almost all 50/75 worksites have such written policies with respect
to the FMLA (95.9% of employees work at these worksites). As expected, almost all 50/75 worksites
guarantee return to the same or an equivalent position as required by the FMLA (98.0% of employees
work at these worksites). The figure is slightly lower for uncovered worksites; 81.5% of employees
work at uncovered worksites that provide this guarantee.
While the FMLA guarantees reinstatement, there is no requirement that the leave be paid (see the
discussion in Section 1.1.2 about state initiatives to provide paid leave). In order to ameliorate the
effects of unpaid leave, the FMLA permits an employee to elect to substitute accrued paid leave for
the unpaid FMLA leave, i.e., to run FMLA leave and paid leave concurrently. The FMLA also allows
the employer to require that accrued paid leave be used. In all instances, the employer’s general
requirements for the use of accrued paid leave apply. Therefore, some worksites do provide paid
leave. Some 50/75 worksites report providing full pay (9.3% of employees work at these worksites),
some report providing partial pay (26.3% of employees work at these worksites), some report
providing no pay (15.6% of employees work at these worksites), and the largest group report some
other policy (47.9% of employees work at these worksites; Exhibit 5.3.1).
Abt Associates Inc.
▌pg. 92
Family and Medical Leave in 2012: Final Report
Exhibit 5.3.1 Worksites' policies for taking leave for a qualifying FMLA reason, by coverage
Weighted by employees at worksite
Leave policies
Worksites that allow leave for any
qualifying FMLA reason
All
% [95% CI]
96.2
[94.8-97.5]
Uncovered
% [95% CI]
89.1
[86.5-91.7]
Covered
% [95% CI]
99.1
[98.3-99.8]
50/75
Worksites
% [95% CI]
99.6
[99.2-100.0]
Weighted by worksite
All
% [95% CI]
83.4
[79.6-87.2]
Uncovered
% [95% CI]
80.7
[76.1-85.2]
Worksites that have a written policy for
80.2
45.7
93.8
95.9
37.5
29.2
taking leave for a qualifying FMLA
[74.6-85.7]
[37.0-54.4]
[90.3-97.2]
[92.5-99.4]
[30.3-44.7]
[21.8-36.6]
reason
Worksites that guarantee the same or
92.9
81.5
97.4
98.0
84.9
83.2
equivalent job upon return
[90.3-95.5]
[76.4-86.6]
[96.0-98.8]
[96.8-99.2]
[81.2-88.5]
[79.4-86.9]
Worksites' pay policies for leave for a qualifying FMLA reason:
Provide full pay
13.3
17.4
11.7
9.3
19.4
18.9
[9.0-17.7]
[11.9-22.9]
[6.1-17.3]
[4.3-14.3]
[15.5-23.3]
[15.3-22.5]
Provide partial pay
20.9
9.7
25.4
26.3
9.0
7.1
[7.7-34.2]
[4.6-14.8]
[8.4-42.4]
[7.2-45.3]
[5.8-12.3]
[4.1-10.0]
Provide no pay
25.9
48.5
17.0
15.6
49.9
54.4
[19.4-32.5]
[42.9-54.1]
[11.0-23.0]
[9.4-21.9]
[45.2-54.6]
[49.9-59.0]
Provide other
37.4
18.5
44.8
47.9
15.9
13.5
[25.9-48.8]
[13.1-24.0]
[29.6-60.0]
[31.0-64.7]
[14.0-17.8]
[10.4-16.6]
Don’t know/refused
2.4
5.9
1.1
0.9
5.8
6.1
[1.3-3.6]
[2.8-8.9]
[0.2-1.9]
[0.2-1.6]
[2.8-8.8]
[3.0-9.2]
Worksites' policies for continuing health benefits while employees are on leave for a qualifying FMLA reason:
Continue health benefits
85.3
62.1
94.4
97.2
50.5
45.9
[81.3-89.3]
[57.7-66.5]
[91.7-97.2]
[95.9-98.5]
[44.5-56.6]
[39.6-52.2]
Do not continue health benefits
3.1
7.1
1.5
1.1
5.6
6.0
[2.1-4.1]
[4.0-10.2]
[0.7-2.3]
[0.4-1.8]
[3.5-7.7]
[2.9-9.0]
No health benefits offered
9.6
26.2
3.0
1.1
40.1
44.8
[6.4-12.8]
[21.3-31.1]
[1.1-4.9]
[0.3-1.8]
[34.2-46.0]
[38.5-51.2]
Don’t know/refused
2.1
4.6
1.1
0.7
3.7
3.3
[0.9-3.3]
[1.2-8.0]
[0.3-1.9]
[0.1-1.2]
[1.3-6.1]
[0.4-6.3]
Unweighted N
1,812
824
988
808
1812
824
Source: Worksite Survey Q16X_3, Q16X_5, Q16X_7, Q16X_8.
Sample: Asked of all worksites. Covered/Uncovered stratification reflects worksites’ self-reported coverage under the FMLA.
Abt Associates Inc.
Covered
% [95% CI]
96.9
[93.5100.3]
73.4
[63.3-83.4]
50/75
Worksites
% [95% CI]
99.4
[98.7-100.0]
90.0
[79.5-100.6]
92.3
[86.3-98.3]
98.3
[97.3-99.2]
21.7
[13.4-29.9]
17.5
[8.0-27.1]
30.3
[23.7-36.9]
26.2
[16.9-35.4]
4.3
[-1.6-10.2]
7.8
[4.1-11.4]
23.4
[0.3-46.5]
23.0
[13.7-32.2]
40.3
[23.3-57.3]
5.6
[-3.7-14.9]
70.8
[60.6-80.9]
4.2
[-0.0-8.4]
19.7
[13.2-26.2]
5.3
[0.1-10.5]
988
93.7
[90.3-97.0]
2.4
[0.5-4.2]
3.2
[1.0-5.4]
0.8
[0.1-1.5]
808
▌pg. 93
Family and Medical Leave in 2012: Final Report
Exhibit 5.3.2 presents worksites’ leave duration and notification policies. Focusing on the results for
50/75 worksites, the average required notification for a foreseeable absence is 16.3 days. The average
reported minimum increment of time permitted for leave is a day (0.9 days). This appears to be
inconsistent with the FMLA, which generally requires a minimum increment of no more than an hour.
Average reported total time allowed for leave, 58.2 days, is close to the FMLA’s 12 weeks (i.e., 60
days); but the average time to care for an injured military service member, 89.3 days, appears to be
less than the FMLA’s 26 weeks (i.e., 130 days).
Abt Associates Inc.
▌pg. 94
Family and Medical Leave in 2012: Final Report
Exhibit 5.3.2 Worksites' time-related policies for taking leave for a qualifying FMLA reason, by coverage
Weighted by employees at worksite
All
% [95% CI]
12.2
[10.3-14.1]
1.1
[0.7-1.4]
68.8
[60.4-77.3]
47.1
[43.9-50.4]
Uncovered
% [95% CI]
4.7
[3.6-5.7]
0.8
[0.5-1.1]
17.1
[13.0-21.2]
22.0
[17.8-26.2]
Covered
% [95% CI]
15.3
[12.8-17.8]
1.1
[0.7-1.6]
83.6
[72.1-95.1]
54.9
[51.4-58.4]
50/75
worksites
% [95% CI]
16.3
[13.6-19.0]
0.9
[0.5-1.2]
58.2
[55.6-60.7]
89.3
[76.2-102.3]
Weighted by worksite
All
% [95% CI]
3.8
[3.2-4.3]
1.1
[0.6-1.6]
18.3
[15.7-20.8]
17.2
[14.6-19.7]
Uncovered
% [95% CI]
2.9
[2.1-3.7]
0.7
[0.4-1.1]
12.8
[8.8-16.7]
8.9
[6.2-11.5]
Covered
% [95% CI]
7.5
[6.1-9.0]
2.8
[1.3-4.3]
36.0
[29.7-42.4]
44.9
[38.0-51.9]
50/75
worksites
% [95% CI]
9.6
[7.4-11.9]
2.4
[0.0-4.8]
54.5
[48.8-60.3]
69.1
[59.7-78.5]
Time-related policies
Average time notification needed for
foreseeable absence (days)
Minimum time increment permitted to take
leave for FMLA reason (days)
Total time allowed to take leave for nonmilitary-related types of leave (days)
Total time allowed to take leave to care for a
military service member, among worksites that
allow leave for military service member (days)
Unweighted N
1,608
678
930
763
1,608
678
930
763
Source: Worksite Survey Q16X_2, Q16X_4, Q16X_6a, Q16X_6b.
Note that we exclude outlier extreme values for all reported responses (approximately 3% of the responses) due to apparent confusion about the question or the unit of response.
Sample: Asked of all worksites. Covered/Uncovered stratification reflects worksites’ self-reported coverage under the FMLA.
Abt Associates Inc.
▌pg. 95
Family and Medical Leave in 2012: Final Report
The Employee Survey also provides information on paid leave (Exhibit 5.3.3). As previously
mentioned, the FMLA allows employees to choose, or worksites to require, that employees take
accrued paid leave such as vacation or sick leave while taking FMLA leave (Public Law 103-3, §
102(d)(2)). Among eligible employees, more than a third reported that their employers designated
their leave as family and medical (36.6%), with some also designating leave as vacation (10.5%), sick
leave (22.0%), or short-term disability (9.2%).
Exhibit 5.3.3 Worksite’s designation of leave reported by employees
Designation of Leave
Vacation leave
Sick leave
Family and medical leave
Short-term disability
Long-term disability
Other
Don’t know/refused
All leave
takers
% [95% CI]
10.4
[8.5-12.3]
20.0
[17.3-22.7]
30.6
[27.2-34.1]
8.1
[6.2-10.0]
0.8
[0.2-1.5]
30.5
[26.6-34.3]
9.6
[7.5-11.7]
Eligible
and
covered
employees
% [95% CI]
10.5
[8.0-13.0]
22.0
[18.7-25.3]
36.6
[32.2-41.0]
9.2
[6.3-12.1]
0.1
[-0.1-0.4]
26.6
[22.0-31.2]
5.0
[3.2-6.7]
Unweighted N
1276
Source: Employee Survey A21.
Columns may sum to >100% since respondent could select more than one category.
Sample: Asked of employees with any leave in the past 12 or 18 months.
864
All other
leave
takers%
[95% CI]
10.3
[6.5-14.1]
16.7
[12.2-21.2]
21.1
[16.5-25.7]
6.3
[3.7-9.0]
1.9
[0.2-3.6]
36.7
[30.2-43.2]
17.0
[12.2-21.7]
412
The FMLA mandates only job-protected leave. There is no requirement that the leave be paid. Exhibit
5.3.4 shows that among all employees who took leave—eligible and ineligible—in the past 12
months, only a third received no pay (34%); nearly half received full pay (48%). However, Exhibit
5.3.5 shows that those patterns vary sharply by length of leave. Among all leave takers, 60% of those
taking leave of 10 days or less receive full pay, vs. only 41% of those taking leaves of more than 10
days.
Abt Associates Inc.
▌pg. 96
Family and Medical Leave in 2012: Final Report
Exhibit 5.3.4 Pay while on most recent leave in the past 12 months
Source: Employee Survey A45, A49.
Sample: Asked of employees who took leave most recent leave in the past 12 months.
Exhibit 5.3.5 Pay while on most recent leave in the past 12 months, by duration of leave
Source: Employee Survey A19, A45, A49.
Length of leave among employees who are currently on leave is imputed by doubling their reported length of
leave. All duration of leave was truncated at 2 months.
Sample: Asked of employees who took leave most recent leave in the past 12 months.
Abt Associates Inc.
▌pg. 97
Family and Medical Leave in 2012: Final Report
Exhibit 5.3.6 disaggregates pay received by employees who took leave by income. Compared to those
with family income below the median, those with family income above the median are much more
likely to get full pay (62.5% vs. 34.0%) and much less likely to get no pay (17.7% vs. 53.0%). Exhibit
5.3.7 provides detail on pay received while on leave in the past 18 months and also includes results
from the 2000 survey (last column).
Exhibit 5.3.6 Pay while on most recent leave in the past 12 months, by family income
< Median family income
>= Median family income
All leave
Leave 1All leave
Leave 1takers
10 days
Leave>10
takers
10 days
Leave>10
Amount of pay received
% [95%
% [95%
days %
% [95%
% [95%
days %
while on leave
CI]
CI]
[95% CI]
CI]
CI]
[95% CI]
No pay received
53.0
56.8
48.3
17.7
17.7
17.2
[45.3-60.7] [44.2-69.4] [38.7-57.9] [13.0-22.4] [10.4-25.0] [11.4-23.0]
Partial pay
12.4
4.7
17.6
19.6
3.7
31.0
[8.2-16.6]
[0.2-9.3] [11.1-24.0] [15.3-23.9]
[0.9-6.4] [24.4-37.6]
Full pay
34.0
38.5
32.9
62.5
78.6
51.4
[27.2-40.7] [24.8-52.1] [25.2-40.7] [56.5-68.4] [71.0-86.2] [43.6-59.2]
Don’t know/refused
0.6
0.0
1.1
0.2
0.0
0.4
[-0.2-1.4]
[0.0-0.0]
[-0.3-2.6]
[-0.2-0.6]
[0.0-0.0]
[-0.3-1.0]
Unweighted N
315
118
181
494
190
288
Source: Employee Survey A45, A49, A50, D4.
Median income = $62,500 (imputed as halfway point in the reported $50,000-$74,999 range).
Sample: Employees who took most recent leave in the past 12 months.
Abt Associates Inc.
▌pg. 98
Family and Medical Leave in 2012: Final Report
Exhibit 5.3.7 Pay while away on leave reported by employees who took leave in the past 18
months: 2012 and 2000
Amount of pay received while on leave
No pay received
One-quarter or less of regular pay
More than one-quarter but less than half of
regular pay*
About half of regular pay
More than half but less than three-quarters of
regular pay**
Three-quarters or more of regular pay
Same amount as regular pay
Don’t know/refused
All leave
takers
% [95% CI]
34.1
[30.7-37.4]
2.7
[1.8-3.6]
2.4
[1.2-3.6]
3.9
[2.8-4.9]
6.1
[4.2-8.1]
3.9
[2.6-5.1]
46.4
[42.8-50.1]
0.6
[0.1-1.1]
2012
Eligible and
covered
employees
% [95% CI]
22.3
[18.4-26.1]
2.8
[1.6-4.0]
2.5
[0.9-4.1]
4.5
[2.7-6.3]
7.4
[4.9-10.0]
4.8
[3.1-6.5]
55.1
[50.6-59.6]
0.6
[0.1-1.1]
2000
All other
leave
takers%
[95% CI]
52.7
[47.2-58.2]
2.4
[0.9-3.9]
2.1
[0.5-3.8]
2.9
[1.5-4.3]
4.1
[1.8-6.5]
2.3
[0.6-4.1]
32.6
[27.1-38.2]
0.7
[-0.2-1.7]
All leave
takers
% [95% CI]
34.2
[30.8-37.6]
N/A
31.1
[24.1-38.1]
25.0
[19.1-30.9]
43.9
[35.8-52.0]
N/A
72.2
[67.4-77.0]
N/A
Unweighted N
1,216
1,276
864
412
* Less than half of regular pay for the 2000 data only.
** More than half of regular pay for the 2000 data only.
Source: 2012 Employee Survey A45, A49, A50. 2000 data are from Tables A1-4.4, 4.6, and 4.7 in the 2000
Report.
Cells with “N/A” indicate that the data were not reported in the 2000 Report.
Sample: Asked of employees who took leave in the past 18 months.
Exhibit 5.3.8 provides detail on sources of pay for all leave takers, including results from the 2000
survey (see first column). 35 Exhibit 5.3.9 and Exhibit 5.3.10 provide detail on source of pay for
eligible and ineligible leave takers, respectively.
35
In the 2012 Employee Survey, respondents who selected “paid time off” were not asked about sick leave or
vacation leave since it was assumed that paid time off already included this type of leave. In contrast, the
2000 Employee Survey did not include “paid time off” as a response category. Therefore, the 2012 results
are not comparable to the 2000 results.
Abt Associates Inc.
▌pg. 99
Family and Medical Leave in 2012: Final Report
Exhibit 5.3.8 Source of pay among all employees who received pay while on leave, 2000 and 2012
2000
All
Source of pay
% [95% CI]
Received any pay while away on leave
65.8
[62.4-69.2]
Source of pay among those who received any pay while on leave:
Paid time off*
N/A
2012
All
% [95% CI]
66.0
[62.6-69.4]
Source of pay, among leave takers who received any pay while on
leave
Employee’s
Employer’s
choice
choice
Both
DK/refused
% [95% CI]
% [95% CI]
% [95% CI]
% [95% CI]
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
67.8
38.2
31.9
26.7
[64.5-71.1]
[33.8-42.6]
[27.1-36.6]
[22.7-30.8]
Sick leave
61.4
43.4
35.4
32.0
24.4
[55.9-66.9]
[35.7-51.0]
[25.6-45.2]
[21.2-42.8]
[16.9-31.9]
Vacation leave
39.4
17.7
25.4
40.2
21.9
[34-44.8]
[12.7-22.6]
[13.3-37.6]
[22.8-57.6]
[9.4-34.5]
Personal leave
25.7
33.7
41.2
26.6
27.2
[22.3-29.1]
[29.8-37.7]
[34.3-48.1]
[21.2-32.0]
[21.3-33.1]
Maternity leave**
7.7
11.8
29.4
25.0
40.5
[4.5-10.9]
[7.4-16.3]
[12.5-46.2]
[4.4-45.6]
[21.5-59.5]
Paternity leave**
7.7
6.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
[4.5-10.9]
[3.3-10.3]
[0.0-0.0]
[0.0-0.0]
[0.0-0.0]
Unweighted N
803
1,276
N/A
N/A
N/A
* Respondents who selected “paid time off” were not asked about sick leave or vacation leave since it was assumed paid time off already included this type of leave.
** In the 2000 Report and the table above, maternity and paternity are reported as one category, “Parental Leave.”
Source: 2012 Employee Survey A45, A46, A47; 2000 Report Tables A1-4.4 and 4.5.
Columns may sum to >100% since respondent could select more than one category.
Cells with “N/A” indicate that the data were not reported in the 2000 Report.
2012 Sample: Asked of employees who took leave in the past 12 or 18 months. The 2000 results reflect the longest leave in the past 18 months.
Abt Associates Inc.
3.2
[1.8-4.6]
8.2
[0.1-16.3]
12.5
[-6.5-31.4]
5.0
[2.2-7.9]
5.1
[-1.3-11.5]
0.0
[0.0-0.0]
N/A
▌pg. 100
Family and Medical Leave in 2012: Final Report
Exhibit 5.3.9 Source of pay among eligible employees who received pay while on leave
Source of pay
Received any pay while away on leave
Source of pay among those who received any pay while on leave:
Paid time off*
All
% [95% CI]
77.8
[74.0-81.6]
35.9
32.3
28.3
[31.2-40.6]
[26.8-37.8]
[23.4-33.2]
Sick leave
37.1
32.8
26.9
[26.4-47.8]
[20.3-45.3]
[18.5-35.3]
Vacation leave
31.4
44.7
23.9
[15.3-47.5]
[27.1-62.2]
[7.0-40.8]
Personal leave
42.5
25.6
25.9
[35.5-49.6]
[19.7-31.6]
[20.1-31.7]
Maternity leave
22.5
31.3
39.8
[5.1-39.8]
[5.8-56.8]
[17.9-61.8]
Paternity leave
0.0
0.0
0.0
[0.0-0.0]
[0.0-0.0]
[0.0-0.0]
Unweighted N
N/A
N/A
N/A
864
* Respondents who selected “paid time off” were not asked about sick leave or vacation leave since it was assumed paid time off already included this type of leave.
Source: Employee Survey A45, A46, A47.
Columns may sum to >100% since respondent could select more than one category.
Sample: Asked of employees who took leave in the past 12 or 18 months.
Abt Associates Inc.
67.6
[63.5-71.8]
46.8
[37.8-55.8]
17.5
[11.9-23.0]
33.9
[29.6-38.1]
13.4
[8.0-18.8]
8.9
[4.3-13.4]
Source of pay, among eligible leave takers who received any pay while on leave
Employee’s
Employer’s
choice
choice
Both
DK/refused
% [95% CI]
% [95% CI]
% [95% CI]
% [95% CI]
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
3.5
[1.9-5.1]
3.2
[0.4-6.0]
0.0
[0.0-0.0]
5.9
[2.3-9.6]
6.4
[-1.6-14.4]
0.0
[0.0-0.0]
N/A
▌pg. 101
Family and Medical Leave in 2012: Final Report
Exhibit 5.3.10 Source of pay among ineligible employees who received pay while on leave
Source of pay
Received any pay while away on leave
Source of pay among those who received any pay while on leave
Paid time off*
All
% [95% CI]
47.2
[41.7-52.7]
30.7
22.7
[21.1-40.4]
[14.8-30.5]
Sick leave
29.0
15.2
[8.3-49.8]
[-3.5-33.9]
Vacation leave
28.6
16.8
[1.0-56.2]
[-1.2-34.9]
Personal leave
29.1
30.6
[15.2-43.0]
[16.2-44.9]
Maternity leave
0.0
43.2
[0.0-0.0]
[12.4-73.9]
Paternity leave
0.0
0.0
[0.0-0.0]
[0.0-0.0]
Unweighted N
412
* Respondents who selected “paid time off” were not asked about sick leave or vacation leave since it was assumed paid time off already included this type of leave.
Source: Employee Survey A45, A46, A47.
Columns may sum to >100% since respondent could select more than one category.
Sample: Asked of employees who took leave in the past 12 or 18 months.
Abt Associates Inc.
68.3
[61.0-75.6]
34.1
[20.2-47.9]
18.2
[5.2-31.3]
33.4
[26.2-40.7]
8.1
[2.7-13.4]
0.5
[-0.5-1.6]
Source of pay, among ineligible leave takers who received any pay while on
leave
Employee’s
Employer’s
choice
choice
Both
DK/refused
% [95% CI]
% [95% CI]
% [95% CI]
% [95% CI]
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
44.3
[34.3-54.3]
29.2
[7.9-50.5]
10.0
[-2.1-22.1]
37.7
[21.4-53.9]
56.8
[26.1-87.6]
0.0
[0.0-0.0]
2.3
[-0.7-5.3]
26.6
[-1.1-54.4]
44.6
[9.0-80.1]
2.6
[-0.7-6.0]
0.0
[0.0-0.0]
0.0
[0.0-0.0]
▌pg. 102
Family and Medical Leave in 2012: Final Report
Sources of pay also vary by length of leave (Exhibit 5.3.11): private maternity or paternity leave is
more common for long leaves (9% vs. 3%), as is private disability leave (25% vs. 4%).
Exhibit 5.3.11 Sources of pay while on most recent leave in the past 12 months, by duration of
leave
Source: Employee Survey A45, A46, A48, A19.
Length of leave among employees who are currently on leave is imputed by doubling their reported length of
leave. All duration of leave was truncated at 2 months.
The following categories from A46 were combined to reflect “Paid time off”: sick leave, vacation leave, personal,
leave, and paid time off.
Sample: Asked of employees who took leave most recent leave in the past 12 months.
Among all leave takers—eligible and ineligible—about one-fifth of those who received some pay
while on leave received pay through temporary disability insurance (21.7%; Exhibit 5.3.12). Ten
percent received pay through some other benefit (10.1%), and a small percentage through state-paid
disability leave or state-paid family leave (6.8% for each). These patterns are similar to those reported
for the 2000 survey.
Abt Associates Inc.
▌pg. 103
Family and Medical Leave in 2012: Final Report
Exhibit 5.3.12 Additional source of pay among leave takers who received pay while on leave
2012
Eligible and
All leave
covered
All other
takers
employees
leave takers
Some of pay received as part of:
% [95% CI]
% [95% CI]
% [95% CI]
Temporary disability insurance
21.7
22.7
19.0
[18.4-25.0]
[18.2-27.2]
[13.3-24.6]
State-paid family leave
6.8
7.8
4.2
[4.4-9.1]
[4.6-10.9]
[2.3-6.0]
State-paid disability leave
6.8
7.1
6.0
[4.5-9.1]
[4.1-10.2]
[3.4-8.6]
Some other benefit
10.1
10.0
10.1
[7.1-13.0]
[6.8-13.3]
[4.9-15.3]
Unweighted N
931
706
225
Source: 2012 Employee Survey A48; 2000 Report Table A1-4.5.
Columns may sum to >100% since respondent could select more than one category.
Cells with “N/A” indicate that the data were not reported in the 2000 Report.
2012 Sample: Asked of employees who took leave in the past 18 months.
2000
All leave
takers
% [95% CI]
18.0
[15-21]
N/A
N/A
11.4
[8.3-14.5]
240
Leave takers who received partial or no pay while on leave (53.6% of all leave takers; see Exhibit
5.3.7) were asked how they covered their lost wages (Exhibit 5.3.13). 36 The most common responses
are limiting spending (84.4%), using savings earmarked for this situation (48.3%), using savings
earmarked for something else (37.0%), put off paying bills (36.5%), cutting leave time short (31.0%),
and borrowing money (30.2%). Less than 20% report going on public assistance (14.8%). Responses
are similar to those in the 1995 and 2000 surveys.
36
For each of the rows presented in Exhibit 5.3.13, the Employee Survey question A53 says, “In order to
cover lost wages or salary during your leave, did you…”
Abt Associates Inc.
▌pg. 104
Family and Medical Leave in 2012: Final Report
Exhibit 5.3.13 Characteristics of finances for employees who received partial or no pay while
on leave
2012
Eligible
and
All other
All leave
covered
leave
To cover lost wages during leave,
takers
employees
takers
employee:
% [95% CI] % [95% CI] % [95% CI]
Used savings had earmarked for this
48.3
46.5
50.2
situation
[43.2-53.3]
[39.9-53.2]
[42.3-58.0]
Used savings earmarked for
37.0
39.6
34.3
something else
[31.4-42.7]
[32.1-47.0]
[26.5-42.1]
Borrowed money
30.2
28.1
32.5
[24.9-35.5]
[20.8-35.5]
[23.9-41.1]
Went on public assistance
14.8
9.8
20.3
[11.3-18.3]
[6.0-13.5]
[13.2-27.4]
Limited spending
84.4
85.7
83.0
[80.3-88.4]
[80.8-90.5]
[76.3-89.6]
Put off paying bills
36.5
32.1
41.2
[30.2-42.7]
[25.4-38.9]
[32.2-50.1]
Cut leave time short
31.0
31.5
30.6
[25.0-37.1]
[23.1-39.8]
[22.3-38.8]
Something else
8.1
8.6
7.5
[5.3-10.9]
[5.2-12.0]
[2.9-12.1]
Unweighted N
599
340
259
Source: 2012 Employee Survey A53; 2000 Report Table A1-4.8.
Columns may sum to >100% since respondent could select more than one category.
2012 Sample: Asked of employees who took leave in the past 12 or 18 months.
Abt Associates Inc.
2000
1995
All leave
takers
% [95% CI]
47.0
[41.6-52.4]
35.6
[31.2-40]
29.0
[24.9-33.1]
8.7
[6-11.4]
70.1
[65.7-74.5]
38.5
[34.1-42.9]
37.0
[31.9-42.1]
9.7
[6.9-12.5]
1,834
All leave
takers
% [95% CI]
43.7
[38.8-48.6]
40.6
[36.4-44.8]
25.1
[21.4-28.8]
8.9
[6.8-11]
75.4
[71.1-79.7]
38.7
[34.2-43.2]
40.3
[34.9-45.7]
13.0
[10-16]
1,769
▌pg. 105
Family and Medical Leave in 2012: Final Report
Employees were also asked how hard it was to make ends meet (Exhibit 5.3.14). Two-thirds report
some level of difficulty (30.1% “very difficult,” 31.9% “somewhat difficult”). Nearly half report that
they would have taken longer leave if more (or any) pay had been available (43.3%). Results are
similar to those in the 2000 Report.
Exhibit 5.3.14 Ease of making ends meet among employees who received partial or no pay
while on leave
2012
Eligible
and
covered
employees
% [95% CI]
All leave
takers
Ease of making ends meet
% [95% CI]
Ease of making ends meeting while on leave with partial pay:
Very easy
6.8
7.5
[4.0-9.7]
[4.5-10.6]
Somewhat easy
14.3
15.4
[11.1-17.4]
[10.9-20.0]
Neither easy nor difficult
16.2
16.9
[12.8-19.7]
[11.0-22.9]
Somewhat difficult
31.9
36.8
[27.8-36.1]
[30.2-43.3]
Very difficult
30.1
22.9
[25.0-35.1]
[17.2-28.7]
Don’t know/refused
0.7
0.4
[-0.1-1.5]
[-0.1-0.9]
Would have taken longer leave if received
43.3
42.2
additional/some pay
[39.2-47.4]
[36.3-48.2]
Unweighted N
599
340
Source: 2012 Employee Survey A54, A55; 2000 Report Table A2-4.2.
Cells with “N/A” indicate that the data were not reported in the 2000 Report.
2012 Sample: Asked of employees who took leave in the past 12 or 18 months.
2000
All other
leave
takers
% [95% CI]
6.1
[2.2-9.9]
13.0
[8.4-17.5]
15.5
[11.0-19.9]
26.7
[21.4-31.9]
37.8
[29.6-46.0]
1.0
[-0.7-2.6]
44.5
[37.4-51.6]
259
13.5
[8.7-18.3]
13.8
[10.2-17.4]
14.5
[11.7-17.3]
35.7
[31.2-40.2]
22.5
[18.8-26.2]
N/A
N/A
658
Finally, under the FMLA, worksites are required to continue group health insurance benefits (if
offered prior to leave) on the same terms, e.g., the employee and worksite each continues to be
responsible for their pre-leave share of premium payments (Public Law 103-3, § 104(c)). Exhibit
5.3.15 reports that loss of health insurance is rare among leave takers: only 3.5% report losing all
health insurance benefits and 1.9% report losing part of their health insurance benefits. Rates of loss
of health insurance are lower for eligible employees relative to ineligible employees (loss of all
insurance: 0.7% vs. 7.8%; loss of part of insurance: 0.8% vs. 3.6%).
Abt Associates Inc.
▌pg. 106
Family and Medical Leave in 2012: Final Report
Exhibit 5.3.15 Health insurance benefits while on leave
Health insurance benefits while on leave
Kept all
Lost part
Lost all
Did not have this benefit
Don’t know/refused
All leave
takers
% [95% CI]
78.7
[73.6-83.8]
1.9
[0.2-3.5]
3.5
[1.3-5.7]
15.7
[11.5-19.8]
0.2
[-0.1-0.5]
572
Unweighted N
Source: Employee Survey A44.
Sample: Asked of employees who took leave in the past 12 or 18 months.
5.4
Eligible
and
covered
employees
% [95% CI]
89.9
[86.0-93.7]
0.8
[-0.0-1.6]
0.7
[-0.0-1.5]
8.6
[5.0-12.2]
0.0
[0.0-0.0]
378
All other
leave
takers
% [95% CI]
61.2
[51.2-71.1]
3.6
[-0.1-7.4]
7.8
[2.7-13.0]
26.8
[18.3-35.3]
0.6
[-0.2-1.4]
194
Fitness-for-Duty Certification before Return to Work
With some conditions, the FMLA statute also allows worksites that have a uniformly applied
requirement that an employee who took leave for her own medical condition get a doctor’s
certification of “fitness-for-duty” before returning to work in certain situations (Public Law 103-3, §
104(a)(4); see also 29 C.F.R. § 825.312).
About half of employees report that their worksite required a fitness-for-duty certification before
return to work (44.5%; see Exhibit DR5.4.1 in the Detailed Results Appendix [Pozniak et al., 2012])).
Exhibit 5.4.1 tabulates worksite reports as to fitness-for-duty requirements. Three-fifths of employees
work at 50/75 worksites that report that they always require a fitness-for-duty certificate (60.0%); few
report that they never require such certification (3.7% of employees work at these worksites).
Furthermore, most 50/75 worksites report that the employee’s insurance pays for the fitness-for-duty
certification (26.7% of employees work at these worksites) or the employee pays (50.0% of
employees work at these worksites) (see Exhibit DR5.4.2 in the Detailed Results Appendix [Pozniak
et al., 2012]).
Abt Associates Inc.
▌pg. 107
Family and Medical Leave in 2012: Final Report
Exhibit 5.4.1 Covered worksites’ fitness-for-duty requirements
Frequency that worksite
requires fitness-for-duty
for FMLA leave
Always
Most of the time
Half the time
Sometimes
Never
Don’t know/refused
Weighted by employees at
worksite
50/75
Covered
worksites
worksites
% [95% CI]
% [95% CI]
60.0
58.6
[44.7-75.3]
[44.2-72.9]
12.7
13.6
[2.0-23.4]
[3.4-23.8]
0.3
0.3
[-0.0-0.6]
[0.0-0.6]
22.5
21.9
[9.9-35.1]
[10.3-33.6]
3.7
4.4
[1.5-5.9]
[1.9-6.8]
0.9
1.2
[0.4-1.4]
[0.4-1.9]
782
925
Weighted by worksite
50/75
Covered
worksites
worksites
% [95% CI]
% [95% CI]
57.0
47.0
[44.0-69.9]
[35.3-58.8]
6.3
9.3
[2.9-9.8]
[1.6-16.9]
0.9
4.0
[-0.3-2.2]
[-0.8-8.8]
20.1
18.2
[8.5-31.7]
[8.2-28.2]
14.9
17.3
[-0.9-30.7]
[8.0-26.6]
0.8
4.2
[0.2-1.4]
[-2.0-10.4]
782
925
Unweighted N
Source: Worksite Survey Q38.
Sample: Asked of worksites that self-report that they are covered by the FMLA.
5.5
Return to Work After Leave
The FMLA requires that the employee be restored to the same or equivalent position as prior to leave.
Exhibit 5.5.1 shows that employees report that they almost always return to their same employer
(89.9%); more among eligible employees (94.4%), fewer among other employees (82.5%). Fewer
than one in ten leave takers do not return to work at all (7.7%). Return to work for a different
employer is quite rare (1.7%). Results are similar to those reported in the 1995 and 2000 surveys.
Exhibit 5.5.1 Employees return to work
2012
Eligible
and
All other
All leave
covered
leave
takers
employees
takers
Returning to work after leave
% [95% CI] % [95% CI] % [95% CI]
Returned to work for same
89.9
94.4
82.5
employer
[87.5-92.3]
[92.7-96.1]
[77.0-88.1]
Returned to work for different
1.7
0.2
4.1
employer
[0.5-2.9]
[-0.1-0.5]
[1.0-7.2]
Did not return to work
7.7
4.8
12.5
[5.7-9.7]
[3.2-6.4]
[8.1-16.9]
Don’t know/refused
0.7
0.6
0.9
[0.1-1.3]
[-0.0-1.3]
[-0.3-2.1]
Unweighted N
1222
828
394
Source: 2012 Employee Survey A59; 2000 Report Table A1-4.12.
2012 Sample: Asked of employees who took leave in the past 12 or 18 months.
Abt Associates Inc.
2000
1995
All leave
takers
% [95% CI]
94.4
[93-95.8]
1.9
[1.1-2.7]
3.8
[2.6-5]
N/A
All leave
takers
% [95% CI]
93.8
[92.3-95.3]
3.1
[2.2-4]
3.0
[2-4]
N/A
1,075
1,040
▌pg. 108
Family and Medical Leave in 2012: Final Report
The Employee Survey asked leave takers why they returned to work (“I’m going to read some
reasons that people give for returning to work after taking leave. Did you return to work because…”;
the question is asked regardless of whether the leave taker returned to the same or a different
employer). Exhibit 5.5.2 reports reasons for return to work for collapsed categories. Exhibit 5.5.3
provides additional detail. About half of leave takers report that they returned because they could not
afford more leave (49.6%; Exhibit 5.5.3); this response was less common among eligible leave takers
(43.6% vs. 60.3%). Other common reasons given include wanted to get back to work (76.9%), doctor
said ready to return to work (70.1%), no longer needed to be on leave (68.8%), care recipient’s doctor
said it was safe to return to work (50.8%), and someone else took over care giving responsibilities
(42.0%).
Under the FMLA, employers are not allowed to pressure employees to return to work. Nevertheless,
12.4% of eligible employees report such pressure as a reason why they returned. Similarly, under the
FMLA, employees on leave should not lose seniority or potential for job advancement. Nevertheless,
22.3% of eligible employees report such concern as a reason why they returned to work. The
corresponding rates for ineligible workers were similar (i.e., not statistically significantly different;
17.5% and 21.8%, respectively). Results were similar to those in the 2000 survey.
Exhibit 5.5.2 Reasons for returning to work with collapsed response categories
Source: 2012 Employee Survey A62.
Leave no longer needed reflects wanted to get back, no longer needed, doctor said ready to return to work,
doctor said it was safe to return to work.
Sample: Asked of employees who took leave in the past 12 months.
Abt Associates Inc.
▌pg. 109
Family and Medical Leave in 2012: Final Report
Exhibit 5.5.3 Reasons for returning to work
2012
Eligible and
All other
covered
leave
All
employees
takers
Reasons for returning to work after leave
% [95% CI]
% [95% CI]
% [95% CI]
Could not afford financially to take more time
49.6
43.6
60.3
off
[45.7-53.5]
[38.8-48.4]
[54.6-65.9]
Wanted to get back to work
76.9
75.3
79.6
[72.9-80.8]
[71.3-79.4]
[72.3-86.8]
Used up all the leave time you were allowed
27.7
28.2
27.0
[24.4-31.1]
[24.2-32.1]
[20.0-34.0]
Felt pressured by your boss or co-workers to
14.2
12.4
17.5
return
[11.8-16.7]
[10.0-14.8]
[11.9-23.0]
Had too much work to do to stay away longer
21.9
21.1
23.5
[19.2-24.6]
[17.9-24.2]
[17.9-29.1]
Someone else took over care-giving
42.0
43.5
39.6
responsibilities
[36.6-47.3]
[37.2-49.8]
[26.7-52.4]
No longer needed to be on leave
68.8
69.7
67.2
[64.5-73.2]
[65.4-74.1]
[59.3-75.0]
Doctor told you that you were ready to return to
70.1
72.8
64.6
work
[65.4-74.7]
[67.0-78.6]
[56.2-73.1]
Care recipient's doctor told you that it was safe
50.8
49.4
52.9
for you to return to work
[45.9-55.6]
[42.5-56.3]
[44.6-61.2]
Did not want to lose your seniority or potential
22.1
22.3
21.8
for job advancement
[19.5-24.7]
[18.6-26.0]
[16.2-27.4]
Unweighted N
1,119
782
337
Source: 2012 Employee Survey A62; 2000 Report Tables A1-4.1 and 4.14.
Columns may sum to >100% since respondent could select more than one category.
Cells with “N/A” indicate that the data were not reported in the 2000 Report.
2012 Sample: Asked of employees with any leave in the past 12 or 18 months.
2000
All
% [95% CI]
50.4
[45.8-55]
66.1
[62.3-69.9]
33.7
[29.2-38.2]
24.2
[20-28.4]
30.1
[26.1-34.1]
23.6
[19.7-27.5]
77.1
[73.7-80.5]
N/A
N/A
26.2
[23-29.4]
3,360
The FMLA guarantees return to the same employer and the same or an equivalent position. As
discussed above in Section 5.3, almost all worksites report that they guarantee the same or an
equivalent job on return from leave (see Exhibit 5.3.1). Exhibit 5.5.4 tabulates conditions of return as
reported by leave takers. Most employees returned to the same or a similar position (95.2%). Unless
the change is voluntary, under the FMLA, employees must be restored to the same or an equivalent
position. Restoration to a worse position appears to be rare: less than 2% (1.2%; samples are not large
enough to reliably report the rate at which this is voluntary). These rates are similar regardless of the
leave taker’s eligibility/coverage status. Responses are similar to those in the 1995 and 2000 surveys.
Abt Associates Inc.
▌pg. 110
Family and Medical Leave in 2012: Final Report
Exhibit 5.5.4 Return to work at same employer
Position
Position upon returning to work:
Same position*
All
% [95% CI]
2012
Eligible
and
covered
employees
% [95% CI]
All other
leave
takers
% [95% CI]
2000
1995
All
% [95% CI]
All
% [95% CI]
95.2
95.6
94.6
97.1
96.8
[93.4-97.1]
[93.3-97.9]
[91.7-97.4]
[96.1-98.1]
[95.8-97.8]
Similar position*
1.5
1.6
1.4
[0.6-2.5]
[0.3-2.9]
[0.3-2.5]
Better position
1.5
1.7
1.3
1.1
1.3
[0.2-2.8]
[-0.1-3.4]
[-0.3-2.9]
[0.5-1.7]
[0.7-1.9]
Worse position
1.2
0.9
1.9
1.8
1.8
[0.5-1.9]
[0.4-1.3]
[0.1-3.7]
[1-2.6]
[0.9-2.7]
Don’t know/refused
0.5
0.3
0.8
N/A
N/A
[0.1-0.9]
[-0.0-0.6]
[-0.2-1.9]
Reason for different position among those who had a similar, better, or worse position after returning to work:
Chose a different position
15.6
13.1
19.8
N/A
N/A
[2.8-28.4]
[1.3-24.9]
[-9.6-49.2]
Worksite asked
19.9
16.6
25.3
N/A
N/A
[5.8-33.9]
[1.6-31.6]
[-5.6-56.2]
Assigned a different position
41.9
40.7
43.9
N/A
N/A
[21.8-62.1]
[12.1-69.3]
[11.9-75.9]
Don’t know/refused
22.6
29.6
11.0
N/A
N/A
[-0.3-45.5]
[-5.5-64.7]
[-5.6-27.5]
Unweighted N
1105
780
325
1,005
966
* 2000 report combines “same position” and “similar position” into one category called “same or equal position.”
Source: 2012 Employee Survey A63, A64; 2000 Report Table A1-4.13.
Cells with “N/A” indicate that the data were not reported in the 2000 Report.
2012 Sample: Asked of employees with any leave in the past 12 or 18 months.
Among those returning to a different position, the most common reasons reported are being assigned
a different position (41.9%) and because the employer asked (19.9%). These findings are similar (i.e.,
not statistically significantly different) regardless of the leave taker’s eligibility/coverage status
(Exhibit 5.5.4).
For those who did not return to their pre-leave employer, Exhibit 5.5.5 tabulates their reported
reasons for their decision. The only common specified reasons are laid off/fired/replaced (23.3%) and
continued health condition (17.3%). Exhibit 5.5.4 also presents the reasons disaggregated between
leave takers who returned to work for a different employer and leave takers who did not return to
work at all; only the latter group report continued health condition as a reason for not returning to
work. 37
37
QA15a of the 2000 Employee Survey asked a similar question about why employees did not return to
work, but had fewer and different response categories. Furthermore, respondents could select only one
category whereas A61 in the 2012 Employee Survey was select all that apply (see Appendix C of the
Methodology Report for more detail). Therefore, the 2012 results are not comparable to the 2000 results.
Abt Associates Inc.
▌pg. 111
Family and Medical Leave in 2012: Final Report
Exhibit 5.5.5 Reason for not returning to same employer after leave
Reason did not return to work for same employer:
Health condition continued
Laid off/fired/replaced
Did not want to return to work
Could not find childcare
Did not pass fitness-for-duty certification
Other
Don’t know/refused
All
% [95% CI]
17.3
[10.4-24.1]
23.3
[13.6-33.0]
3.4
[-0.1-6.9]
0.8
[-0.8-2.5]
2.1
[-0.0-4.2]
53.4
[40.5-66.3]
0.5
[-0.5-1.5]
109
Return to
different
employer
% [95% CI]
0.0
[0.0-0.0]
17.7
[-13.2-48.6]
0.0
[0.0-0.0]
0.0
[0.0-0.0]
2.2
[-2.4-6.7]
77.2
[46.5-107.9]
2.9
[-2.9-8.7]
14
Did not return
to work
% [95% CI]
21.0
[13.1-29.0]
24.5
[14.4-34.6]
4.2
[-0.1-8.4]
1.0
[-1.0-3.1]
2.1
[-0.3-4.5]
48.2
[34.8-61.7]
0.0
[0.0-0.0]
95
Unweighted N
Source: 2012 Employee Survey A61.
Columns may sum to >100% since respondent could select more than one category. 2012 survey response
categories that were not selected by any respondents (i.e., obtained other income source, could not find
eldercare, found a better job, and change in schedule or job responsibilities) are not included in the table above.
Sample: Asked of employees with any leave in the past 12 or 18 months.
Finally, leave takers were asked if they experienced a variety of outcomes resulting from their leave
(“I’m going to read you some possible effects from taking leave from work that you may or may not
have experienced. As a result of taking leave…”); the results are presented in Exhibit 5.5.6. Most
leave takers report that they were able to maintain health insurance (79.3%); this was more common
among eligible covered employees than other leave takers (86.8% vs. 67.3%, respectively). Over half
of leave takers report that personal information was revealed (52.1%) and a third report being unable
to afford unpaid leave (36.7%); these reports were similar regardless of eligibility/coverage status.
Very few eligible, covered leave takers lost their job (1.1%); more reported losing seniority (7.8%).
These negative outcomes were more common among ineligible workers (14.8% and 13.6%,
respectively).
Abt Associates Inc.
▌pg. 112
Family and Medical Leave in 2012: Final Report
Exhibit 5.5.6 Possible effects from taking leave
As a result of taking leave, employee:
Lost job
Lost seniority or potential for advancement
Was unable to afford an unpaid leave
Revealed personal information
Was treated differently because of the reason took
leave
Was able to maintain or pay for health insurance
Other outcome
% [95% CI]
6.4
[4.2-8.6]
10.0
[8.0-12.1]
36.7
[33.3-40.0]
52.1
[48.8-55.5]
15.4
[13.1-17.6]
79.3
[76.1-82.5]
9.2
[7.4-11.0]
1,276
Eligible and
covered
employees
% [95% CI]
1.1
[0.2-2.0]
7.8
[5.5-10.1]
35.1
[31.0-39.2]
54.1
[50.2-58.0]
14.0
[10.8-17.1]
86.8
[83.5-90.2]
9.5
[7.4-11.7]
864
Unweighted N
Source: Employee Survey A23.
Columns may sum to >100% since respondent could select more than one category.
Sample: Asked of employees who took leave in the past 12 or 18 months.
Abt Associates Inc.
All other
leave takers
% [95% CI]
14.8
[9.4-20.3]
13.6
[8.7-18.5]
39.2
[32.9-45.5]
49.0
[42.8-55.2]
17.6
[12.4-22.8]
67.3
[61.9-72.6]
8.6
[5.9-11.4]
412
▌pg. 113
Family and Medical Leave in 2012: Final Report
6. Employee’s Unmet Need for Leave
The previous two chapters considered leave actually taken. However, not every employee who feels
that she (or he) needs leave actually takes leave. Causes of unmet need for leave include: (i) the
individual is not eligible for FMLA (e.g., the employee works at an uncovered worksite, or she has
not worked long enough at a covered worksite); (ii) the reason for the leave is not covered by the
FMLA; and (iii) the individual has exhausted her available entitlement for the leave year.
This chapter explores the prevalence of such unmet need for leave as well as its underlying causes.
Section 6.1 considers the prevalence of unmet need for leave. Section 6.2 considers the number of
instances of unmet need for leave. The third section considers the reasons for needing leave, and the
fourth section considers the reasons for not taking needed leave. Section 6.5 considers actions taken
in lieu of leave. The final section briefly discusses the results.
As noted in Chapter 1, unless otherwise noted, when discussing results from the Worksite Survey, we
focus on estimates weighted by the number of employees at the worksite (not weighted by worksite)
for 50/75 worksites (i.e., worksites that have 50 employees within 75 miles and are, therefore, large
enough to have covered employees).
6.1
Leave Needed but Not Taken
Among all workers, 4.6% report that they had an unmet need for leave in the past year. (Recall from
Chapter 1 that some of these employees both took leave and report an unmet need for leave.) The
rates are similar among eligible and ineligible employees (4.8% and 4.4%; Exhibit 6.1.1). Exhibit
6.1.2 provides more detail.
Abt Associates Inc.
▌pg. 114
Family and Medical Leave in 2012: Final Report
Exhibit 6.1.1 Rate of unmet need for leave in the past 12 months, by eligibility
Source: Employee Survey B3.
Sample: Employees with unmet need for leave in the past 12 months.
Abt Associates Inc.
▌pg. 115
Family and Medical Leave in 2012: Final Report
Exhibit 6.1.2 Rate of unmet need for leave for a qualifying FMLA reason in the past 12 and 18 months, by eligibility
Employees with unmet need for leave
Employees with unmet need for leave in the past 12 months
Employees with unmet need for leave in the past 18 months
All
% [95% CI]
4.6
[3.9-5.3]
6.1
[5.1-7.0]
2,852
129,992,426
Unweighted N
Weighted N
*I.e., imposing the FMLA 12 months and 1250 hours rules.
Source: Employee Survey B1, B3.
Sample: Employees with unmet need for leave in the past 12 or 18 months.
Abt Associates Inc.
Eligible and
covered
employees
% [95% CI]
4.8
[3.8-5.8]
6.1
[5.1-7.2]
1,713
67,999,329
All other
employees
with unmet
need for leave
% [95% CI]
4.4
[3.3-5.5]
6.0
[4.3-7.6]
1,139
61,993,097
“All other leave takers” subgroups
Not 50/75,
Not 50/75,
50/75
would be
would not be
ineligible*
eligible*
eligible*
% [95% CI]
% [95% CI]
% [95% CI]
5.9
3.5
4.3
[3.3-8.6]
[2.2-4.7]
[2.8-5.8]
8.9
4.1
5.7
[4.2-13.6]
[2.6-5.7]
[3.9-7.5]
272
454
413
16,532,284
22,707,031
22,753,781
▌pg. 116
Family and Medical Leave in 2012: Final Report
The 2000 survey asked a similar question about the past 18 months. For that reference period, rates of
unmet need for leave are about double those found in the two earlier surveys, increasing from 2.4% in
2000 to 6.1% in 2012 (Exhibit 6.1.3). One possible reason is concern induced by the weak economy
(though we have no direct evidence to support that conjecture). See Exhibit 6.1.4 for more detail.
Exhibit 6.1.3 Change in rate of unmet need for leave in the past 18 months
Source: 2012 Employee Survey B1; 2000 Report, Table A1-2.14.
Sample: Employees with unmet need for leave in the past 18 months.
Exhibit 6.1.4 Rate of unmet need for leave in the past 18 months, 1995, 2000, 2012
All
All other
Eligible and
employees
covered
with unmet
employees
need for leave
1995
2000
2012
2012
2012
Rate of unmet need
% [95% CI]
% [95% CI]
% [95% CI]
% [95% CI]
% [95% CI]
Rate of needing leave in
3.1
2.4
6.1
6.1
6.0
the past 18 months
[2.6-3.6]
[2.0-2.8]
[5.1-7.0]
[5.1-7.2]
[4.3-7.6]
Source: Employee Survey B1; 2000 Report, Table 2.14. The 2000 Report did not present rates of unmet need for
leave by employee eligibility status.
Sample: Employees with unmet need for leave in the past 18 months.
Exhibit 6.1.5 shows that 64.4% of employees who needed but did not take leave in the past 12 month
are female; 35.6% are male.
Abt Associates Inc.
▌pg. 117
Family and Medical Leave in 2012: Final Report
Exhibit 6.1.5 Employees who needed but did not take leave in the past 12 months by gender
Source: Employee Survey S8, B3.
Sample: Employees with unmet need for leave in the past 12 months.
Exhibit 6.1.6 reports how unmet leave rates vary across demographic subgroups. As in Chapter 4, the
entries have the following interpretation: “Percent of individuals in <SUBGROUP> with unmet need
for leave in the last year.” The prevalence of unmet need for leave varies widely across some of the
demographic groups. More women than men report unmet need for leave (6.1% vs. 3.2%). Unlike
leave taking, rates of unmet need for leave are higher for non-whites than whites (6.7% vs. 3.8%), for
unmarried than married respondents (5.8% vs. 3.7%), and for low-income individuals (8.2% for those
with earnings below $35,000 vs. rates below 3.4% for those with higher earnings). Rates of unmet
need for leave are higher for those with children than for those without children (6.3% vs. 3.4%). The
results are similar regardless of employee eligibility status.
Abt Associates Inc.
▌pg. 118
Family and Medical Leave in 2012: Final Report
Exhibit 6.1.6 Rate of unmet need for leave in the past 12 months, by demographic
characteristics
Employees who needed but did not take leave in the
past 12 months
All
Age:
18-33
34-49
50-82
Gender:
Female
Male
Education:
Less than High School Graduate and High School
Graduate
Some College
College Graduate and Graduate School
Ethnicity:
Hispanic
Non-Hispanic
Race:
White
Non-white
Marital status:
Married
Not married
Region:
Northeast
South
Mid-West
West
Abt Associates Inc.
All
% [95% CI]
4.6
[3.9-5.3]
Eligible and
covered
employees
% [95% CI]
4.8
[3.8-5.8]
All other
employees
with unmet
need for
leave
% [95% CI]
4.4
[3.3-5.5]
4.3
[3.1-5.5]
6.1
[4.4-7.7]
3.6
[2.7-4.4]
3.5
[1.7-5.3]
6.6
[4.3-8.9]
4.0
[2.7-5.2]
4.8
[2.9-6.8]
5.3
[3.2-7.5]
3.1
[2.1-4.1]
6.1
[4.8-7.4]
3.2
[2.4-4.0]
6.4
[4.4-8.4]
3.3
[2.2-4.3]
5.7
[4.0-7.5]
3.2
[2.0-4.4]
4.2
[2.9-5.4]
6.3
[4.7-8.0]
3.5
[2.7-4.4]
4.8
[2.6-7.1]
6.1
[4.0-8.3]
3.8
[2.8-4.8]
3.6
[2.2-5.1]
6.6
[4.2-8.9]
3.1
[1.5-4.6]
5.6
[3.1-8.0]
4.5
[3.7-5.2]
5.9
[1.9-10.0]
4.6
[3.7-5.6]
5.2
[2.5-8.0]
4.2
[3.0-5.5]
3.8
[3.2-4.5]
6.7
[4.9-8.4]
4.0
[3.1-5.0]
7.0
[4.3-9.6]
3.6
[2.6-4.7]
6.4
[3.8-8.9]
3.7
[2.9-4.4]
5.8
[4.6-7.0]
3.6
[2.8-4.4]
6.5
[4.5-8.5]
3.8
[2.5-5.1]
5.1
[3.5-6.7]
4.0
[2.5-5.5]
5.8
[4.3-7.2]
4.4
[3.1-5.7]
4.5
[2.8-6.1]
4.7
[2.7-6.7]
5.8
[4.0-7.7]
4.7
[2.3-7.1]
4.5
[1.8-7.2]
3.3
[1.7-4.8]
5.7
[3.2-8.2]
4.0
[1.8-6.2]
4.5
[2.5-6.4]
▌pg. 119
Family and Medical Leave in 2012: Final Report
Employees who needed but did not take leave in the
past 12 months
Children in household:
0
All
% [95% CI]
3.4
[2.6-4.1]
6.3
[4.9-7.6]
3.3
[2.4-4.2]
6.8
[4.8-8.8]
3.5
[2.3-4.7]
5.6
[3.6-7.7]
8.2
[6.1-10.3]
4.2
[3.0-5.5]
3.4
[2.5-4.3]
11.2
[6.0-16.3]
4.2
[2.6-5.8]
3.4
[2.3-4.4]
6.4
[4.1-8.6]
4.4
[2.3-6.4]
3.5
[1.9-5.2]
3.8
[2.9-4.7]
5.0
[3.9-6.1]
2,852
3.7
[2.8-4.6]
5.6
[4.0-7.1]
1,713
4.0
[1.9-6.1]
4.3
[2.7-5.9]
1,139
1 or more
Income:
<$35,000
$35,000-$75,000
>$75,000
How paid:
Salaried
All others
Unweighted N
Source: Employee Survey S7, S8, E9, D1, D5, D4, D7, D10, ZIP.
Sample: Employees with unmet need for leave in the past 12 months.
6.2
Eligible and
covered
employees
% [95% CI]
All other
employees
with unmet
need for
leave
% [95% CI]
Number of Leaves Needed but Not Taken
The previous section considered the prevalence of any need for leave that did not result in leave
taken. Exhibit 6.2.1 considers the number of leaves needed but not taken. The average number of
leaves needed but not taken for different medical conditions is 4.4. The results are similar regardless
of employee eligibility status. Among those who had unmet need for leave, most needed leave for
only one condition (89.2%).
Exhibit 6.2.1 Number of leaves needed but not taken in the past 12 months
Number of leaves needed but not taken for different
medical conditions, per employee, in the past 12
months
Total number of leaves needed but not taken for different
medical conditions in past 12 months
Single condition
Multiple condition
All
[95% CI]
4.4
[3.2-5.5]
89.2%
[85.1-93.3]
10.8%
[6.7-14.9]
297
Unweighted N
Source: Employee Survey B5, B5a, B5b.
Sample: Employees with unmet need for leave in the past 12 months.
Abt Associates Inc.
Eligible and
covered
employees
[95% CI]
4.2
[3.0-5.5]
91.0%
[86.2-95.7]
9.0%
[4.3-13.8]
169
All other
employees
with unmet
need for
leave
[95% CI]
4.5
[2.0-6.9]
87.1%
[79.9-94.3]
12.9%
[5.7-20.1]
128
▌pg. 120
Family and Medical Leave in 2012: Final Report
Exhibit 6.2.2 presents the distribution of leaves needed but not taken in the past 18 months for 2000
and 2012. In 2012, the most common response was one unmet need for leave (40.1%) and a quarter
needed two leaves (26.1%). Responses are stable from 2000 to 2012.
Exhibit 6.2.2 Distribution of number of leaves needed but not taken by employees for different
medical conditions in the past 18 months: 2000 and 2012
Number of leaves needed but not taken in past 18 months
1
2
3-4
5+
2000
% [95% CI]
44.4
[36.2-52.6]
25.0
[18.6-31.4]
18.9
[12.8-25]
11.8
[7.4-16.2]
2012
% [95% CI]
40.1
[33.2-47.0]
26.1
[20.3-31.9]
17.8
[12.7-22.9]
16.0
[11.3-20.8]
Source: 2012 Employee Survey B4; 2000 Report Table A1-2.15.
Sample: Employees with unmet need for leave in the past 18 months.
Employees who needed but who did not take leave were also asked how many different times they
needed leave for a particular medical reason or condition; that is, did they need continuous or
intermittent leave. A fifth report needing leave for their condition just one time (20.6%); nearly 40%
needed it twice (39.5%; Exhibit 6.2.3).
Exhibit 6.2.3 Number of times leave was needed but not taken for a particular medical reason
in the past 12 months
Number of times leave needed for particular medical
reason in past 12 months
1
2
3-4
5+
All
employees
with unmet
need for
leave
% [95% CI]
20.6
[14.1-27.2]
39.5
[31.4-47.6]
23.8
[15.0-32.7]
16.0
[10.7-21.3]
Average
[95% CI]
3.3
[2.7-3.9]
212
Average number of times leave needed for particular
medical reason in past 12 months
Unweighted N
Source: Employee Survey B14a.
Sample: Employees with unmet need for leave in the past 12 months.
6.3
Eligible and
covered
employees
% [95% CI]
19.6
[11.0-28.2]
37.7
[28.2-47.1]
25.3
[14.7-35.9]
17.5
[11.1-24.0]
Average
[95% CI]
3.8
[2.7-4.9]
124
All other
employees
with unmet
need for leave
% [95% CI]
21.9
[11.3-32.5]
41.6
[28.4-54.8]
22.2
[9.2-35.2]
14.3
[4.8-23.8]
Average
[95% CI]
2.7
[2.0-3.4]
88
Reasons for Needing Leave
Exhibit 6.3.1 tabulates the reasons for unmet need for leave among workers. Unlike nearly all other
exhibits, in this exhibit we include non-qualifying FMLA reasons (e.g., a non-relative’s health
condition) to show the small percentage of employees with unmet need for leave whose reason for
Abt Associates Inc.
▌pg. 121
Family and Medical Leave in 2012: Final Report
taking leave would not be covered by FMLA. As with leave taken, nearly half of unmet leave is for
the employee’s own illness (49.7%). Leave related to a new child is less common among workers
with unmet need for leave than among leave takers (9.2% vs. 21.1%; Exhibit 4.4.2), whereas leave for
a parent’s, spouse’s, or child’s health condition is more common for this group than for leave takers
(35.8% vs. 18.2%; Exhibit 4.4.2). Unmet need for leave for a new child is less common among the
eligible than the ineligible (4.3% vs. 15.3%). Otherwise, reasons are fairly consistent regardless of the
worker’s eligibility status (see last two columns of Exhibit 6.3.1).
Exhibit 6.3.1 Medical reasons for unmet need for leave in the past 12 months
Medical reasons for needing leave in past 12
months
Own illness
Related to a new child
Parent's, spouse's or child's health condition
Other relative's health condition
Other non-relative’s health condition
Domestic partner's health condition
Address issue of military member's deployment
Don’t know/refused
All
employees
with unmet
need for
leave
% [95% CI]
49.7
[42.1-57.2]
9.2
[4.6-13.9]
35.8
[29.1-42.5]
5.0
[2.6-7.4]
1.4
[-0.0-2.8]
0.8
[-0.2-1.9]
0.9
[-0.3-2.1]
1.7
[-0.3-3.7]
322
Eligible and
covered
employees
% [95% CI]
49.5
[39.8-59.3]
4.3
[1.0-7.5]
38.5
[29.5-47.5]
5.5
[2.0-9.0]
2.3
[-0.2-4.7]
1.2
[-0.5-3.0]
1.6
[-0.6-3.8]
1.6
[-0.3-3.6]
186
Unweighted N
Source: Employee Survey B6.
Columns may sum to >100% since respondent could select more than one category.
Sample: Employees with unmet need for leave in the past 12 months.
All other
employees
with unmet
need for
leave
% [95% CI]
49.8
[39.4-60.2]
15.3
[5.9-24.8]
32.4
[22.9-41.9]
4.4
[0.8-7.9]
0.4
[-0.4-1.2]
0.3
[-0.3-0.9]
0.0
[0.0-0.0]
1.9
[-1.8-5.6]
136
As discussed in Chapter 4, the Employee Survey did not ask respondents directly about their
disability status. However, just as was done with leave takers, the survey asked employees with
unmet need for leave about the nature of their health condition. We would expect disability to be
reported as an ongoing health condition. Two-fifths of employees with unmet need for leave had an
ongoing health condition for which they needed to take leave (42.2%; Exhibit 6.3.2) and nearly a
third had a one-time health matter (31.2%). These reasons were consistent regardless of employees’
eligibility status. In contrast, nearly half of leave takers took leave for a one-time health matter
(45.6%) and only a quarter for an ongoing health condition (24.8%; see Exhibit 4.4.3).
Abt Associates Inc.
▌pg. 122
Family and Medical Leave in 2012: Final Report
Exhibit 6.3.2 Nature of health condition for unmet need for leave in the past 12 months
Nature of health condition
A one-time health matter
Injury or illness that now requires routine scheduled
care
Ongoing health condition
Other
Don’t know/refused
All
employees
with unmet
need for
leave
% [95% CI]
31.2
[22.9-39.6]
19.2
[13.2-25.2]
42.2
[33.3-51.0]
11.1
[6.3-15.9]
1.2
[-0.1-2.4]
279
Eligible and
covered
employees
% [95% CI]
29.0
[17.8-40.2]
24.2
[15.4-32.9]
41.8
[30.9-52.8]
8.8
[3.6-14.1]
1.1
[-0.6-2.9]
160
Unweighted N
Source: Employee Survey B11.
Columns may sum to >100% since respondent could select more than one category.
Sample: Employees with unmet need for leave in the past 12 months.
All other
employees
with unmet
need for
leave
% [95% CI]
34.0
[22.9-45.2]
13.0
[6.6-19.4]
42.6
[31.0-54.1]
13.9
[4.5-23.2]
1.2
[-0.5-2.9]
119
Exhibit 6.3.3 reports that a quarter of unmet need for leave was due to one’s own ongoing health
condition (25.0%) and another tenth was due to the ongoing health condition of another family
member (11.8%).
Exhibit 6.3.3 Nature of illness and medical reasons for unmet need for leave in the past 12
months
Medical reason for unmet need for leave
Own illness (except for new child)
Related to a new child
Parent's, spouse’s or child’s health condition
Other qualifying reason
One-time
health
matter
% [95% CI]
16.7
[9.8-23.6]
8.4
[3.5-13.3]
13.6
[7.2-20.0]
0.2
[0.0-0.5]
91
Injury or
illness that
now
requires
routine
scheduled
care
% [95% CI]
7.0
[3.5-10.4]
0.0
[0.0-0.0]
9.5
[5.0-13.9]
0.0
[0.0-0.0]
55
Ongoing
health
condition
% [95% CI]
25.0
[18.6-31.3]
0.0
[0.0-0.0]
11.8
[7.1-16.5]
0.0
[0.0-0.0]
130
Other
% [95% CI]
3.0
[0.8-5.3]
1.6
[0.0-4.3]
3.3
[1.7-4.9]
0.0
[0.0-0.0]
31
Unweighted N
Source: Employee Survey B6, B11.
Anyone who reported an unmet need for leave related to a new child (i.e., B6=3-10) was not asked the nature of
their illness (i.e., B11). These respondents are included in the table above as a one-time health matter.
Sample: Employees with unmet need for leave in the past 12 months.
The Employee Survey asked about whether the condition for which the employee had unmet need for
leave required a doctor’s care. Similar to leave takers (see Exhibit 4.4.6), the majority of employees
with unmet need for leave required a doctor’s care (92.1%) but only 37.1% required an overnight
Abt Associates Inc.
▌pg. 123
Family and Medical Leave in 2012: Final Report
hospital stay. See Exhibit DR6.3.2 in the Detailed Results Appendix (Pozniak et al., 2012) for more
detail.
Exhibit 6.3.4 reports incidence and reasons cited in the Worksite Survey for denial of leave at covered
worksites. Half of 50/75 worksites report never denying leave for any reason (48.2% of employees
work at these worksites). Among 50/75 worksites reporting denials (unweighted N=188), most
reported some denials for using up all allotted time under the FMLA (89.7% of employees work at
these worksites; 89.7%=0.5% “all” + 1.8% “most” + 87.4% “some”), and no denials for not meeting
notice requirements (73.7% of employees work at worksites that reported “none”). Nearly 90% of
employees work at 50/75 worksites that report denying leave to some eligible employees because the
FMLA did not cover the employee’s reason for leave (87.1% of employees work at these worksites).
Abt Associates Inc.
▌pg. 124
Family and Medical Leave in 2012: Final Report
Exhibit 6.3.4 Denial of leave for a qualifying FMLA reason at covered worksites
Denial of leave
50/75 worksites, weighted by employees at worksite
Percent of applications for leave for a qualifying FMLA
reason denied for any reason
Eligible employees denied leave because:
Used entire time allotment covered by FMLA
FMLA did not cover the reason for their leave
Did not meet notice requirements
Unweighted N
All covered worksites, weighted by employees at worksite
Percent of applications for leave for a qualifying FMLA
reason denied for any reason
Eligible employees denied leave because:
Used entire time allotment covered by FMLA
FMLA did not cover the reason for their leave
Did not meet notice requirements
Unweighted N
50/75 worksites, weighted by worksite
Percent of applications for leave for a qualifying FMLA
reason denied for any reason
Eligible employees denied leave because:
Used entire time allotment covered by FMLA
FMLA did not cover the reason for their leave
Did not meet notice requirements
Unweighted N
Abt Associates Inc.
All
% [95% CI]
Most
% [95% CI]
Some
% [95% CI]
None
% [95% CI]
DK
% [95% CI]
0.1
[-0.1-0.3]
0.0
[0.0-0.0]
49.7
[34.0-65.5]
48.2
[32.4-64.0]
2.0
[0.7-3.2]
0.5
[-0.3-1.2]
0.0
[0.0-0.0]
0.1
[-0.1-0.2]
1.8
[-1.6-5.3]
0.0
[0.0-0.0]
0.0
[0.0-0.0]
87.4
[80.4-94.5]
87.1
[79.6-94.7]
26.2
[6.0-46.4]
188
9.9
[4.5-15.2]
12.8
[5.2-20.3]
73.7
[53.5-94.0]
0.4
[-0.2-1.0]
0.1
[-0.1-0.3]
0.0
[0.0-0.0]
0.1
[-0.1-0.3]
0.0
[0.0-0.0]
44.6
[30.0-59.3]
53.5
[38.8-68.1]
1.8
[0.7-2.9]
0.5
[-0.3-1.2]
0.0
[0.0-0.0]
0.1
[-0.1-0.2]
1.8
[-1.6-5.2]
0.0
[0.0-0.0]
0.0
[0.0-0.0]
87.3
[80.3-94.4]
87.0
[79.4-94.7]
26.2
[6.0-46.3]
190
10.0
[4.6-15.4]
12.9
[5.3-20.5]
73.8
[53.6-94.0]
0.4
[-0.2-1.0]
0.1
[-0.1-0.3]
0.0
[0.0-0.0]
0.2
[-0.1-0.4]
0.0
[0.0-0.0]
8.7
[4.6-12.9]
90.3
[86.0-94.6]
0.8
[0.3-1.3]
0.4
[-0.2-1.1]
0.0
[0.0-0.0]
0.8
[-0.8-2.5]
0.4
[-0.2-1.1]
0.0
[0.0-0.0]
0.0
[0.0-0.0]
53.8
[35.3-72.4]
62.1
[45.5-78.8]
9.6
[3.8-15.4]
188
44.9
[26.6-63.1]
37.6
[21.0-54.3]
89.6
[82.9-96.3]
0.4
[-0.2-1.1]
0.2
[-0.2-0.7]
0.0
[0.0-0.0]
▌pg. 125
Family and Medical Leave in 2012: Final Report
Denial of leave
All covered worksites, weighted by worksite
Percent of applications for leave for a qualifying FMLA
reason denied for any reason
Eligible employees denied leave because:
Used entire time allotment covered by FMLA
FMLA did not cover the reason for their leave
Did not meet notice requirements
All
% [95% CI]
Some
% [95% CI]
None
% [95% CI]
DK
% [95% CI]
0.1
[-0.0-0.1]
0.0
[0.0-0.0]
3.2
[1.5-4.9]
96.2
[94.4-98.1]
0.5
[0.0-1.0]
0.4
[-0.2-1.0]
0.0
[0.0-0.0]
0.8
[-0.8-2.4]
0.4
[-0.2-1.0]
0.0
[0.0-0.0]
0.0
[0.0-0.0]
51.4
[32.7-70.2]
59.4
[42.1-76.6]
9.1
[3.6-14.6]
190
47.3
[28.8-65.8]
40.4
[23.2-57.7]
90.1
[83.7-96.5]
0.4
[-0.2-1.0]
0.2
[-0.2-0.6]
0.0
[0.0-0.0]
Unweighted N
Source: Worksite Survey Q27, Q28, Q30, Q32.
Sample: Asked of all worksites that self-report that they are covered by the FMLA.
Abt Associates Inc.
Most
% [95% CI]
▌pg. 126
Family and Medical Leave in 2012: Final Report
6.4
Reasons for Not Taking Leave
Why would someone who felt that they needed leave not take leave? Exhibit 6.4.1 tabulates the most
commonly cited responses to that question from workers who needed but did not take leave.
Consistent with the fact that the FMLA allows for an unpaid absence, about half of employees with
unmet need report that they cannot afford to take leave (46%). The only other common response is
fear of losing one’s job (17%).
Exhibit 6.4.1 Commonly cited reasons for not taking leave
Source: Employee Survey B15.
Sample: Employees with unmet need for leave in the past 12 months.
Exhibit 6.4.2 provides more detail, including results from the 1995 and 2000 surveys. For the most
part, the results are similar regardless of the eligibility status of the employee with unmet need for
leave (see the second and third two columns of Exhibit 6.4.2). Note, however, that ineligibility for
leave is less common among eligible employees (1.2% vs. 4.0%).
Responses are very different from those in the 1995 and 2000 surveys; in particular, there is much
less concern about losing a job or seniority. In addition, ineligibility is less common. It is not clear
why. The questions are similar, but not identical. For example, respondents to the 2000 survey were
read aloud each response category, whereas in 2012 the respondent’s “free text” responses were
coded to the expanded response categories by the interviewer. We also note that rates of unmet need
for leave are much higher in 2012 than in earlier years.
Abt Associates Inc.
▌pg. 127
Family and Medical Leave in 2012: Final Report
Exhibit 6.4.2 Non-medical reasons for not taking leave in the past 12 months by eligibility in 2012, past 18 months for 1995 and 2000
2012
Reason needed leave was not taken
by employee
You thought you might lose your job
You thought you would lose your
seniority or potential for job
advancement*
You were ineligible**
Your worksite denied your request
You couldn't afford to take an unpaid
leave
You wanted to save your leave time
Your work is too important
You were worried about revealing
personal information about yourself,
your care recipient, or family
relationships
You thought you would be treated
differently because of the reason you
needed to take leave
You thought that the person you
wanted to take leave to care for was
not considered a covered family
member
You thought that the health condition
did not qualify
Your worksite's process for taking leave
was too complicated
Abt Associates Inc.
1995
2000
All employees with
unmet need for
leave
% [95% CI]
29.7
[23.1-36.3]
37.9
[N/A]
All employees with
unmet need for
leave
% [95% CI]
31.9
[25.3-38.5]
70.4
[N/A]
All employees
with unmet need
for leave
% [95% CI]
17.0
[11.2-22.9]
1.9
[0.6-3.3]
Eligible and
covered employees
% [95% CI]
17.3
[9.4-25.1]
2.6
[0.5-4.8]
All other
employees with
unmet need for
leave
% [95% CI]
16.8
[9.1-24.5]
1.1
[-0.6-2.9]
2.5
[0.4-4.5]
6.0
[2.4-9.5]
46.1
[39.1-53.1]
4.0
[1.0-6.9]
3.7
[1.5-5.9]
0.2
[-0.1-0.6]
1.2
[-0.2-2.6]
6.1
[0.9-11.4]
45.7
[37.7-53.7]
3.2
[0.6-5.8]
4.2
[1.3-7.0]
0.2
[-0.2-0.7]
4.0
[-0.1-8.1]
5.8
[1.3-10.3]
46.6
[35.3-57.9]
4.9
[-0.8-10.6]
3.2
[-0.2-6.5]
0.3
[-0.3-0.8]
14.3
[9.3-19.3]
9.9
[5.5-14.3]
65.9
[57.8-74.0]
28.5
[21.8-35.2]
40.8
[33.6-48]
N/A
30.7
[N/A]
20.8
[15-26.6]
77.6
[71-84.2]
34.3
[27.6-41]
52.6
[44.6-60.6]
N/A
2.1
[1.1-3.1]
1.6
[-0.2-3.5]
2.6
[-0.6-5.9]
N/A
N/A
1.2
[-1.2-3.6]
2.2
[-2.2-6.7]
0.0
[0.0-0.0]
N/A
N/A
0.6
[-0.1-1.4]
0.4
[-0.2-1.1]
0.3
[-0.3-0.9]
0.8
[-0.4-2.0]
1.0
[-0.4-2.5]
0.0
[0.0-0.0]
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
▌pg. 128
Family and Medical Leave in 2012: Final Report
2012
Reason needed leave was not taken
by employee
You were unable to meet your
worksite's notice requirement for taking
leave
You were unaware of the availability of
leave
Other reason
All employees
with unmet need
for leave
% [95% CI]
1.0
[-0.2-2.1]
Eligible and
covered employees
% [95% CI]
0.6
[-0.6-1.8]
All other
employees with
unmet need for
leave
% [95% CI]
1.4
[-0.7-3.4]
1995
2000
All employees with
unmet need for
leave
% [95% CI]
N/A
All employees with
unmet need for
leave
% [95% CI]
N/A
0.2
0.4
0.0
N/A
N/A
[-0.2-0.6]
[-0.3-1.1]
[0.0-0.0]
30.1
29.8
30.4
N/A
13.2
[24.4-35.7]
[22.2-37.4]
[20.3-40.5]
[8.6-17.8]
Unweighted N
297
169
128
406
598
* Reported as two categories in the 2000 Report for both 1995 and 2000. The sum of the two categories is reported above. However, we note that because
employees could select more than one category, this may over-estimate the percentage for 1995 and 2000.
** Reported as two categories in the 2000 report for 2000. The sum of the two categories is reported above. However, we note that because employees could
select more than one category, this may over-estimate the percentage for 2000. In 1995, this was reported as “not eligible—worked part time,” and the other not
eligible category was not asked.
Source: 2012 Employee Survey B15; 2000 Report Table 2.17.
Columns may sum to >100% since respondent could select more than one category.
Cells with “N/A” indicate that the data were not reported in the 2000 Report.
2012 Sample: Employees with unmet need for leave in the past 12 months. 1995 and 2000 reflect employees with unmet need for leave in the past 18 months.
Abt Associates Inc.
▌pg. 129
Family and Medical Leave in 2012: Final Report
For the most part, the results are similar regardless of income (Exhibit 6.4.3). Higher income families
are more likely to report being unable to afford more unpaid leave (53.3% vs. 36.6%). Additionally,
higher income families are less likely to report that their work is too important (1.2% vs. 8.9%) and
that they would be treated differently because they took leave (0.4% vs. 5.4%).
Exhibit 6.4.3 Non-medical reasons for not taking leave in the past 12 months, by family income
Reason needed leave was not taken by employee
You thought you might lose your job
You thought you would lose your seniority or potential for job
advancement
You were ineligible
Your employer denied your request
You couldn't afford to take an unpaid leave
You wanted to save your leave time
Your work is too important
You were worried about revealing personal information about
yourself, your care recipient, or family relationships
You thought you would be treated differently because of the reason
you needed to take leave
You thought that the person you wanted to take leave to care for was
not considered a covered family member
You thought that the health condition did not qualify
Your employer's process for taking leave was too complicated
You were unable to meet your employer's notice requirement for
taking leave
You were unaware of the availability of leave
Other reason
< Median family
income
% [95% CI]
17.8
[9.0-26.6]
2.7
[-0.1-5.6]
2.7
[-1.5-7.0]
8.5
[3.4-13.6]
36.6
[26.9-46.3]
3.7
[0.1-7.2]
8.9
[3.6-14.1]
0.7
[-0.3-1.7]
5.4
[2.7-8.1]
0.0
[0.0-0.0]
0.5
[-0.5-1.6]
0.4
[-0.4-1.3]
0.7
[-0.7-2.1]
0.6
[-0.6-1.8]
35.5
[25.9-45.2]
133
Unweighted N
Source: Employee Survey B15, D4.
Columns may sum to >100% since respondent could select more than one category.
Median income = $62,500 (imputed as halfway point in the reported $50,000-$74,999 range).
Sample: Employees with unmet need for leave in the past 12 months.
Abt Associates Inc.
>= Median
family income
% [95% CI]
16.9
[8.6-25.3]
1.7
[-0.1-3.5]
1.0
[-0.2-2.2]
5.2
[-0.0-10.5]
53.3
[43.5-63.0]
3.8
[-0.7-8.3]
1.2
[-0.6-3.0]
0.0
[0.0-0.0]
0.4
[-0.4-1.3]
2.1
[-2.0-6.2]
0.8
[-0.4-1.9]
0.5
[-0.5-1.5]
1.2
[-0.5-3.0]
0.0
[0.0-0.0]
26.1
[16.4-35.8]
135
▌pg. 130
Family and Medical Leave in 2012: Final Report
6.5
Actions in Lieu of Leave
Finally, Exhibit 6.5.1 tabulates actions taken in lieu of leave for employees who needed but did not
take leave. 38 The results suggest that employees with unmet need for leave use multiple strategies.
The most common reported strategies are: someone else took over care-giving responsibilities
(65.4%), deferring or forgoing medical care (52.3% and 50.3% respectively), some other family
member(s) took leave (41.1%), and paying others to provide care (31.6% for childcare; 35.1% for
eldercare). The results stratified by eligibility and coverage status suggest similar strategies are used
by both groups of workers who needed but did not take leave.
Exhibit 6.5.1 Action taken in lieu of taking leave
Action taken in lieu of leave
Recipient forewent medical treatment
Recipient postponed treatment
Someone else in the family took leave
Someone else took over care-giving responsibilities
Paid for eldercare
Paid for childcare
Other solution
All employees
with unmet
need for leave
% [95% CI]
50.3
[41.7-58.9]
52.3
[44.5-60.0]
41.1
[27.5-54.8]
65.4
[55.8-75.0]
35.1
[19.6-50.5]
31.6
[17.1-46.1]
22.0
[16.3-27.6]
297
Eligible and
covered
employees
% [95% CI]
51.7
[40.3-63.0]
55.8
[46.5-65.2]
44.4
[26.6-62.1]
63.7
[52.8-74.6]
21.9
[4.2-39.7]
31.5
[13.2-49.8]
19.8
[12.5-27.0]
169
Unweighted N
Source: Employee Survey B20.
Columns may sum to >100% since respondent could select more than one category.
Sample: Employees with unmet need for leave in the past 12 months.
38
All employees
with unmet
need for leave
% [95% CI]
48.7
[35.5-61.9]
47.8
[35.1-60.5]
37.1
[22.2-51.9]
67.5
[51.5-83.5]
44.4
[21.8-67.0]
31.9
[14.3-49.5]
24.5
[16.1-33.0]
128
The 2000 survey asked a similar question: “B4: Since you did not take leave, what did you do to take care
of the situation?” However, it was an open-ended question which was then summarized by the authors to
five mutually exclusive categories: “just lived with it/suffered through it,” “got help from others (family,
friends),” altered work (schedule, duties, etc.), “took some time off,” “did something else” (see Table 2.19
in the 2000 Report). Because of the different methodology, the results are not comparable between 2000
and 2012.
Abt Associates Inc.
▌pg. 131
Family and Medical Leave in 2012: Final Report
7. Subpopulation Analyses
The previous three chapters reported broad patterns of behavior among leave takers and employees
with unmet need for leave, with some disaggregation by FMLA eligibility. In this chapter, we report
tabulations for subgroups of particular interest. Specifically, Section 7.1 provides evidence from the
Worksite Survey on leaves taken for military-related reasons and Section 7.2 examines differential
patterns of leave by gender and, in particular, paternity leave.
The Detailed Results Appendix presents additional results from the Employee Survey for military
leave (i.e., leave to care for a military service member with a serious injury or illness and leave for
reasons related to the deployment of a military service member) and unmet need for leave, as well as
leave taking and leave needing based on a worker’s sexual orientation. We did not oversample either
of these groups. As a result, there are simply too few cases to provide useful results. 39
As noted in Chapter 1, unless otherwise noted, when discussing results from the Worksite Survey we
focus on estimates weighted by the number of employees at the worksite (not weighted by worksite)
for 50/75 worksites (i.e., worksites that have 50 employees within 75 miles and are, therefore, large
enough to have covered employees).
7.1
Leave for Military Personnel
In this section, we provide evidence from the Worksite Survey on leaves taken for military-related
reasons. Attention to these groups rose with the increased level of military operations after the
terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001.
Members of the Active Components of the military do not need leave for military service since the
Department of Defense is their worksite. However, the Reserve Components are citizen soldiers; they
hold civilian jobs and are also subject to call to active duty as needed by the military. The Uniformed
Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA) guarantees activated reservists the
right to return to the job they would have attained had they not been absent for military service
(“escalator” clause). 40
Among the groups needing military-related leave are family members of deploying service members
and family members caring for an injured service member. The 2008 National Defense Authorization
Act (NDAA) expanded the qualifying reasons for FMLA-protected leave to include leave for
qualifying exigencies related to the deployment of a close relative (spouse, son, daughter, or parent)
with the National Guard or Reserves. The 2008 NDAA also provided eligible employees who are the
spouse, parent, son, daughter, or next of kin of a covered service member with a serious injury or
39
There were only 16 cases of leave for a military deployment and 2 cases of unmet need for leave for a
military deployment. Similarly, there were only 8 cases of leave to care for an injured service member and
4 cases of unmet need to care for leave for an injured service member. Finally, there were only 80 cases
where the individual self-reported being lesbian/gay or bisexual, of which 29 took leave and 13 had unmet
need for leave. It follows that those results should be interpreted with extreme care.
40
On USERRA, see http://www.dol.gov/vets/programs/userra/userra_fs.htm.
Abt Associates Inc.
▌pg. 132
Family and Medical Leave in 2012: Final Report
illness with up to 26 workweeks of leave in a single 12-month period to care for the service member.
The 2010 NDAA further expanded leave for qualifying exigencies to cover employees with close
family members serving in the Regular Armed Forces, and also expanded FMLA-protected leave to
care for a covered service member to include certain veterans with a serious injury or illness and to
include a serious injury or illness that existed prior to service and that was aggravated in the line of
duty on active duty. Given these changes to the FMLA, the 2012 surveys introduced new questions
specific to leave related to military personnel.
The Worksite Survey asked worksites about their leave policy related to care for a military service
member with a serious injury or illness as well as their leave policy for reasons related to family
members of deployed military service members. Across all worksites—covered and uncovered—the
vast majority report that they allow leave for both types of military family reasons (Exhibit 7.1.1):
90.8% of employees work for worksites that allow leave for reasons related to the care of a military
service member, and 84.3% work for worksites that allow leave for reasons related to the deployment
of a military service member. As expected, rates are higher for covered worksites than for uncovered
worksites (for serious injury/illness: 97.1% vs. 75.8%; for deployment: 88.7% vs. 73.6%). As
reported in Exhibit 5.3.2, average leave allowed by worksites to take care of a service member with a
serious injury or illness is 47.1 days for all worksites, but much higher for covered worksites than
uncovered worksites (54.9 days vs. 22.0 days, respectively). 41
41
The Worksite Survey did not ask worksites about the total time allowed for reasons related to deployment
of a military member.
Abt Associates Inc.
▌pg. 133
Family and Medical Leave in 2012: Final Report
Exhibit 7.1.1 Worksites that allow leave to care for military personnel, by coverage
All
worksites
% [95% CI]
Uncovered
% [95% CI]
Covered
% [95% CI]
50/75
worksites
% [95% CI]
Leave to care for military personnel
Weighted by employees at worksite
Worksite allows leave for the care of a military service member with a serious injury or illness:
Yes
90.8
75.8
97.1
98.4
[88.0-93.6]
[71.4-80.2]
[95.5-98.6]
[97.4-99.3]
Depends
3.0
8.7
0.6
0.1
[2.1-4.0]
[6.2-11.3]
[0.0-1.2]
[-0.0-0.3]
No
4.8
11.5
2.0
1.3
[3.0-6.6]
[8.5-14.4]
[0.9-3.2]
[0.5-2.2]
Don’t know/refused
1.4
4.0
0.3
0.2
[0.8-1.9]
[2.5-5.5]
[0.0-0.5]
[-0.0-0.4]
Worksite allows leave for reasons related to the deployment of a military service member:
Yes
84.3
73.6
88.7
89.1
[77.6-91.0]
[69.1-78.1]
[78.8-98.6] [78.2-100.0]
Depends
3.7
10.0
1.1
0.6
[2.6-4.9]
[7.6-12.4]
[0.2-1.9]
[0.1-1.1]
No
8.7
11.4
7.6
7.5
[1.8-15.6]
[8.4-14.5]
[-1.8-16.9]
[-2.8-17.8]
Don’t know/refused
3.3
4.9
2.6
2.8
[0.5-6.2]
[2.9-7.0]
[-1.2-6.5]
[-1.6-7.2]
Weighted by worksite
Worksite allows leave for the care of a military service member with a serious injury or illness:
Yes
69.7
65.9
88.5
96.7
[63.9-75.4]
[60.3-71.5]
[80.1-96.8]
[94.9-98.6]
Depends
16.6
18.9
5.0
0.6
[13.1-20.1]
[14.4-23.4]
[-0.4-10.5]
[-0.3-1.5]
No
10.7
11.7
6.0
1.8
[7.4-14.1]
[8.0-15.3]
[0.3-11.7]
[0.7-2.9]
Don’t know/refused
3.0
3.5
0.5
0.9
[1.4-4.7]
[1.7-5.4]
[0.0-1.0]
[-0.1-1.9]
Worksite allows leave for reasons related to the deployment of a military service member:
Yes
67.6
63.7
86.8
92.2
[61.5-73.6]
[57.5-70.0]
[78.1-95.4]
[87.7-96.7]
Depends
17.8
20.3
5.5
1.7
[14.6-21.1]
[15.9-24.7]
[-0.1-11.0]
[0.1-3.2]
No
10.5
11.2
6.8
4.0
[7.0-14.0]
[7.4-15.0]
[0.9-12.7]
[0.9-7.2]
Don’t know/refused
4.1
4.7
0.9
2.2
[2.1-6.1]
[2.4-7.1]
[0.2-1.7]
[-0.2-4.5]
Unweighted N
1,812
824
988
808
Source: Worksite Survey Q16.
Sample: Worksite Covered/Uncovered stratification reflects worksites’ self-reported coverage under the FMLA.
Abt Associates Inc.
▌pg. 134
Family and Medical Leave in 2012: Final Report
7.2
Leave for Paternity and Maternity Reasons
Prior to the FMLA, some states passed legislation providing job-protected maternity leave, i.e., leave
for mothers, often due to the disability late in a pregnancy and the rigors of childbirth. However, the
federal FMLA legislation is drawn much more broadly than maternity leave alone. It is gender neutral
and covers circumstances well beyond childbirth. Given the evidence of increasing (though far from
complete) balance in gender roles in the United States since the 2000 survey (Donze, 2005; Prohaska
and Zipp, 2009), this section reports tabulations of leave taking and unmet need for leave by gender—
overall and in particular for parental (paternity/maternity) responsibilities. Section 7.2.1 uses the
Worksite Survey to compare worksite policies on maternity leave and paternity leave. Section 7.2.2
uses the Employee Survey to compare leave taking and unmet need for leave, overall and by gender.
Note that throughout this section, we use the term “parental leave” to refer to leave taken either by
mothers (i.e., maternity leave) or by fathers (i.e., paternity leave).
7.2.1
Worksite Offers of Paid Parental Leave
Worksite Survey responses suggest that paid parental leave is not common (Exhibits 7.2.1 and 7.2.2).
Over all worksites—covered and uncovered—about a third of employees work at worksites that offer
paid maternity leave to all or most female employees (21.6% for all employees + 13.5% for most
employees). Paid paternity leave is slightly less common (9.0% for all employees + 11.0% for most
employees).
Abt Associates Inc.
▌pg. 135
Family and Medical Leave in 2012: Final Report
Exhibit 7.2.1 Worksites that offer paid maternity and paternity leave to employees, weighted by employees at worksite
All worksites, weighted by employees at worksite
Uncovered worksites, weighted by employees at worksite
All
Most
Some
No
All
Most
Some
No
employees employees employees employees DK/refused employees employees employees employees DK/refused
Paid maternity/paternity leave
% [95% CI] % [95% CI] % [95% CI] % [95% CI] % [95% CI] % [95% CI] % [95% CI] % [95% CI] % [95% CI] % [95% CI]
Worksites that offer paid maternity leave
21.6
13.5
23.2
39.3
2.3
17.6
7.1
7.4
62.4
5.5
[14.1-29.2]
[8.2-18.9]
[9.4-37.0] [30.4-48.2]
[0.3-4.4] [11.1-24.2]
[1.7-12.4]
[3.8-10.9] [54.0-70.8]
[0.4-10.6]
Worksites that offer paid paternity leave
9.0
11.0
20.8
55.2
3.9
9.4
6.0
3.9
74.7
6.0
[5.9-12.1]
[5.9-16.2]
[6.4-35.2] [43.9-66.5]
[1.0-6.8]
[5.6-13.3]
[0.8-11.2]
[1.9-5.9] [67.5-82.0]
[1.5-10.4]
Worksites that offer paid paternity and maternity leave
8.9
11.2
21.3
56.6
2.1
9.6
6.2
4.2
78.5
1.4
[5.7-12.0]
[5.9-16.5]
[6.8-35.8] [44.5-68.7]
[-0.3-4.5]
[5.6-13.7]
[0.7-11.7]
[2.1-6.4] [71.7-85.3]
[-0.2-3.0]
Unweighted N
1,812
824
Covered worksites, weighted by employees at worksite
50/75 worksites, weighted by employees at worksite
All
Most
Some
No
All
Most
Some
No
employees employees employees employees DK/refused employees employees employees employees DK/refused
Paid maternity/paternity leave
% [95% CI] % [95% CI] % [95% CI] % [95% CI] % [95% CI] % [95% CI] % [95% CI] % [95% CI] % [95% CI] % [95% CI]
Worksites that offer paid maternity leave
23.3
16.2
29.8
29.6
1.0
23.3
17.0
31.6
27.3
0.8
[12.6-34.1]
[8.4-24.0] [11.9-47.8] [19.5-39.7]
[0.3-1.7] [11.5-35.1]
[8.2-25.8] [12.0-51.2] [16.6-38.0]
[0.2-1.5]
Worksites that offer paid paternity leave
8.8
13.1
28.0
47.0
3.1
7.5
13.6
30.0
45.7
3.2
[5.0-12.7]
[5.9-20.3]
[9.6-46.3] [32.4-61.6]
[-0.0-6.2]
[3.6-11.4]
[5.5-21.6] [10.1-50.0] [29.7-61.7]
[-0.3-6.6]
Worksites that offer paid paternity and maternity leave
8.5
13.2
28.1
47.8
2.3
7.2
13.7
30.1
46.5
2.5
[4.7-12.4]
[6.0-20.5]
[9.6-46.6] [32.9-62.7]
[-0.8-5.5]
[3.3-11.2]
[5.6-21.8] [10.0-50.2] [30.1-62.8]
[-0.9-5.9]
Unweighted N
988
808
Source: Worksite Survey Q11.
Sample: Asked of all worksites. Covered/Uncovered stratification reflects worksites’ self-reported coverage under the FMLA.
Abt Associates Inc.
▌pg. 136
Family and Medical Leave in 2012: Final Report
Exhibit 7.2.2 Worksites that offer paid maternity and paternity leave to employees, weighted by worksite
Paid maternity/paternity leave
Worksites that offer paid maternity leave
Worksites that offer paid paternity leave
Worksites that offer paid paternity and
maternity leave
Unweighted N
Paid maternity/paternity leave
Worksites that offer paid maternity leave
Worksites that offer paid paternity leave
All worksites, weighted by worksite
Uncovered worksites, weighted by worksite
All
Most
Some
No
All
Most
Some
No
employees employees employees employees DK/refused employees employees employees employees DK/refused
% [95% CI] % [95% CI] % [95% CI] % [95% CI] % [95% CI] % [95% CI] % [95% CI] % [95% CI] % [95% CI] % [95% CI]
17.6
3.4
4.1
72.6
2.3
14.6
2.4
2.5
78.3
2.2
[12.4-22.9]
[1.3-5.6]
[1.5-6.7]
[66.9-78.3]
[0.5-4.1]
[8.9-20.3]
[0.6-4.3]
[0.6-4.4]
[72.6-83.9]
[0.3-4.1]
11.4
2.6
2.5
80.6
2.9
9.0
1.7
1.2
85.6
2.5
[6.8-16.0]
[0.7-4.5]
[0.8-4.1]
[75.4-85.8]
[1.1-4.8]
[4.6-13.5]
[0.3-3.0]
[-0.1-2.5]
[80.5-90.7]
[0.7-4.4]
11.2
2.6
2.6
82.4
1.2
8.8
1.7
1.3
87.4
1.0
[6.3-16.0]
[0.7-4.6]
[0.9-4.2]
[77.0-87.7]
[-0.0-2.5]
[4.0-13.5]
[0.3-3.1]
[-0.1-2.6]
[82.2-92.6]
[-0.3-2.2]
1,812
824
Covered worksites, weighted by worksite
50/75 worksites, weighted by worksite
All
Most
Some
No
All
Most
Some
No
employees employees employees employees DK/refused employees employees employees employees DK/refused
% [95% CI] % [95% CI] % [95% CI] % [95% CI] % [95% CI] % [95% CI] % [95% CI] % [95% CI] % [95% CI] % [95% CI]
32.7
8.6
12.2
43.9
2.6
32.5
9.3
16.9
40.5
0.9
[25.1-40.2]
[3.0-14.3]
[4.3-20.1]
[36.8-51.0]
[-0.3-5.4]
[18.4-46.5]
[4.9-13.7]
[4.7-29.0]
[24.6-56.5]
[0.2-1.6]
23.2
7.6
8.9
55.4
5.0
12.5
6.6
15.5
58.1
7.3
[16.4-30.0]
[2.0-13.1]
[1.9-15.9]
[46.3-64.4]
[0.3-9.7]
[2.9-22.1]
[3.3-9.8]
[2.9-28.0]
[37.4-78.9]
[-3.2-17.9]
23.4
7.6
9.1
57.1
2.7
12.0
6.5
15.7
59.1
6.7
[16.1-30.8]
[2.0-13.2]
[2.1-16.2]
[47.7-66.5]
[-1.6-7.0]
[2.3-21.7]
[3.3-9.7]
[3.1-28.3]
[37.9-80.2]
[-3.9-17.4]
988
808
Worksites that offer paid paternity and
maternity leave
Unweighted N
Source: Worksite Survey Q11.
Sample: Asked of all employers. Covered/Uncovered stratification reflects worksites’ self-reported coverage under the FMLA.
Abt Associates Inc.
▌pg. 137
Family and Medical Leave in 2012: Final Report
7.2.2
Employees’ Take-Up and Need of Leave
Exhibit 7.2.3 presents rates of leave taking and unmet need for leave in the past 12 months for
different medical reasons, by gender. Overall and for many of the specific reasons for taking leave,
women are more likely to take leave and more likely to have unmet need for leave.
Exhibit 7.2.3 Rates of leave taking and unmet need for leave in the past 12 months for different
medical reasons, by gender
Employees with unmet
Leave takers
need for leave
Medical reason for taking or needing
Males
Females
Males
Females
leave
% [95% CI]
% [95% CI]
% [95% CI]
% [95% CI]
All FMLA qualifying reasons
11.4
15.1
3.2
6.1
[09.9-13.0]
[13.3-16.9]
[2.4-4.0]
[4.8-7.3]
Own illness
7.2
8.7
1.9
3.1
[6.0-8.3]
[7.4-10.0]
[1.3-2.5]
[2.3-3.8]
Related to a new child
2.5
3.9
0.4
0.5
[1.7-3.2]
[2.6-5.1]
[0.1-0.7]
[0.1-0.8]
Parent's, spouse’s or child’s health condition
2.0
3.5
0.9
2.6
[1.4-2.5]
[2.8-4.3]
[0.6-1.3]
[1.8-3.5]
Other relative's health condition
0.0
0.2
0.0
0.1
[-0.0-0.0]
[0.0-0.3]
[-0.0-0.1]
[-0.0-0.1]
Other non-relative’s health condition
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
[0.0-0.0]
[0.0-0.0]
[-0.0-0.0]
[-0.0-0.0]
Domestic partner's health condition
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
[0.0-0.0]
[0.0-0.0]
[0.0-0.0]
[0.0-0.0]
Address issue of military member's
0.4
0.1
0.0
0.0
deployment
[0.0-0.7]
[0.0-0.2]
[-0.0-0.1]
[-0.0-0.1]
Other reason
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
[-0.0-0.1]
[-0.0-0.1]
[0.0-0.0]
[-0.1-0.3]
Unweighted N
1,262
1,589
1,262
1,589
Source: Employee Survey S8, A1, B1, B2, A5, B6.
Sample: Asked of all employees with any leave taken or needed in the past 12 months.
Exhibit 7.2.4 plots rates of leave taking in the past 18 months by gender for 1995, 2000, and 2012.
The rate of leave taking has increased significantly for men (between 1995 and 2012), but not for
women. Exhibit 7.2.5 provides more detail.
Abt Associates Inc.
▌pg. 138
Family and Medical Leave in 2012: Final Report
Exhibit 7.2.4 Rates of leave taking in the past 18 months by gender for 1995, 2000, 2012
Source: Employee Survey A1; 2000 Report Table A2-2.7.
Sample: Employees who took leave in the past 18 months.
Exhibit 7.2.5 Rates of leave taking in the past 18 months by gender, 1995, 2000, 2012
Rate of taking leave in the past 18 months
Males
Females
Difference
Unweighted N
Source: Employee Survey A1; 2000 Report Table A2-2.7.
Sample: Employees who took leave in the past 18 months.
1995
% [95% CI]
12.7
[11-14.4]
20.0
[17.6-22.4]
7.3% pts
1,172
2000
% [95% CI]
13.5
[11.9-15.1]
19.8
[17.8-21.8]
6.3% pts
1,229
2012
% [95% CI]
16.0
[14.1-17.9]
21.2
[19.0-23.3]
5.2% pts
2,852
Again, with the caveat that sample sizes are small for such comparisons, Exhibit 7.2.6 compares the
nature of the health condition for men and women. The rate of taking or needing leave is lower for
males than females across all health conditions. In particular, females are more likely to take leave for
an illness or injury that requires routine or scheduled care (2.2% vs. 1.1%).
Abt Associates Inc.
▌pg. 139
Family and Medical Leave in 2012: Final Report
Exhibit 7.2.6 Rates of leave takers and employees with unmet need for leave, for the nature of
the health condition in the past 12 months, by gender
Nature of health condition
A one-time health matter
Injury or illness that now requires routine
scheduled care
Ongoing health condition
Other
Don’t know/refused
Leave takers
Males
Females
% [95% CI]
% [95% CI]
4.7
5.9
[3.7-5.6]
[4.9-7.0]
1.1
2.2
[0.7-1.5]
[1.5-2.8]
2.3
3.3
[1.5-3.2]
[2.5-4.0]
1.2
2.2
[0.7-1.8]
[1.6-2.8]
0.1
0.2
[-0.0-0.1]
[0.0-0.3]
1,262
1,589
Employees with unmet
need for leave
Males
Females
% [95% CI]
% [95% CI]
1.1
1.6
[0.5-1.6]
[0.9-2.3]
0.5
1.2
[0.2-0.7]
[0.7-1.7]
1.1
2.5
[0.7-1.6]
[1.8-3.1]
0.2
0.8
[0.1-0.3]
[0.4-1.2]
0.0
0.1
[-0.0-0.1]
[-0.0-0.2]
1,262
1,589
Unweighted N
Source: Employee Survey A10, B11.
Sample: Asked of all employees with any leave taken or needed in the past 12 months.
Exhibit 7.2.7 plots the distribution of leave lengths for non-parental and parental reasons (parental
reasons defined as caring for or bonding with a newborn, newly adopted child, or new foster child or
for maternity-related disability/illness; i.e., a new child). Exhibit 7.2.8 presents additional detail. The
distribution of durations is relatively similar between males and females for non-parental reasons (top
panel of Exhibit 7.2.7). However, for parental reasons (that is, related to a new child), the
distributions are very different (bottom panel of Exhibit 7.2.7). Women are much less likely to take a
leave of 10 days or less (22.8% vs. 70.4%) and much more likely to take a much longer leave (see
Exhibit 7.2.8).
Abt Associates Inc.
▌pg. 140
Family and Medical Leave in 2012: Final Report
Exhibit 7.2.7 Length of leave for non-parental and parental reasons, by gender
Source: Employee Survey A5, A19.
Length of leave among employees who are currently on leave is imputed by doubling their reported length of
leave. All duration of leave was truncated at 2 months.
Parental reason defined as caring for or bonding with a newborn, newly adopted child, or new foster child, or
maternity-related disability/illness.
Non-parental reason defined as own illness (excluding maternity-related disability/illness), caring for parent,
spouse or child, or military deployment or injury.
Sample: All employees with most recent leave taken in the past 12 months.
Abt Associates Inc.
▌pg. 141
Family and Medical Leave in 2012: Final Report
Exhibit 7.2.8 Length of leave taken reasons in the past 12 months for non-parental and parental reasons, by gender
For non-parental reasons
For parental reasons
Most recent in past 12 months
Longest in past 12 months
Most recent in past 12 months
Longest in past 12 months
Females
Males
% [95%
Males
Females
Males
Females
Males
Females
Duration of leave
% [95% CI]
CI]
% [95% CI]
% [95% CI]
% [95% CI]
% [95% CI]
% [95% CI]
% [95% CI]
0-10 days
47.2
39.3
46.1
39.1
70.4
22.8
69.4
22.6
[39.7-54.7]
[33.3[37.8-54.3]
[33.0-45.3]
[55.1-85.7]
[11.2-34.4]
[54.0-84.9]
[10.8-34.4]
45.2]
11-40 days
25.2
39.3
25.2
40.4
14.6
21.5
17.7
19.4
[20.2-30.2]
[33.0[19.9-30.5]
[34.1-46.7]
[5.1-24.0]
[10.0-32.9]
[6.2-29.2]
[9.7-29.2]
45.7]
41-60 days
9.4
9.9
10.1
10.3
9.2
17.6
7.9
19.0
[3.6-15.2]
[6.6-13.1]
[3.9-16.4]
[6.9-13.7]
[-0.7-19.2]
[9.0-26.1]
[-0.8-16.6]
[10.0-27.9]
60+ days
18.1
11.5
18.6
10.1
5.8
38.2
5.0
39.0
[13.1-23.1]
[8.4-14.7]
[13.3-23.8]
[6.9-13.4]
[-5.8-17.4]
[24.6-51.8]
[-5.0-14.9]
[25.4-52.5]
Average
Average
Average
Average
Average
Average
Average
Average
[95% CI]
[95% CI]
[95% CI]
[95% CI]
[95% CI]
[95% CI]
[95% CI]
[95% CI]
Average days
34.0
29.6
35.8
27.4
21.8
57.5
20.5
59.0
[26.9-41.2]
[25.2[28.0-43.5]
[23.8-30.9]
[1.4-42.1]
[45.8-69.2]
[3.1-37.9]
[47.1-70.8]
34.0]
Unweighted N
296
421
279
391
50
93
55
92
Source: Employee Survey A5, A19.
Length of leave among employees who are currently on leave is imputed by doubling their reported length of leave. All duration of leave was truncated at 2 months.
Parental reason defined as caring for or bonding with a newborn, newly adopted child, or new foster child, or maternity-related disability/illness.
Non-parental reason defined as own illness (excluding maternity-related disability/illness), caring for parent, spouse or child, or military deployment or injury.
Sample: Asked of all employees with any leave taken in the past 12 months.
Abt Associates Inc.
▌pg. 142
Family and Medical Leave in 2012: Final Report
Finally, Exhibit 7.2.9 presents the percentage of pay received by parental leave takers, stratified by
gender. Females are almost twice as likely as males to receive pay for parental leave (20.9% vs.
13.3%). For male parental leave takers who received pay, nearly half report it being the employee’s
choice (47.9%), compared to just over a third of female parental leave takers (38.1%).
Exhibit 7.2.9 Pay received by employees who took leave in the past 12 months for parental
reasons, by gender
Pay receipt
Pay received by employees for parental leave
Choice of pay:
Employee's choice
Required by worksite
Both employee and worksite choice
Male
% [95% CI]
13.3
[5.8-20.7]
Female
% [95% CI]
20.9
[10.7-31.1]
47.9
[16.8-79.0]
26.2
[-0.3-52.6]
22.1
[-1.9-46.0]
75
38.1
[18.6-57.6]
25.5
[3.0-47.9]
33.6
[14.7-52.5]
106
Unweighted N
Source: Employee Survey A5, A45, A46, A47.
Parental reason defined as caring for or bonding with a newborn, newly adopted child, or new foster child or for
maternity-related disability/illness.
Sample: Employees who took leave for parental reasons in the past 12 months.
7.3
Leave by Sexual Orientation
As noted at the start of the chapter, sample sizes are too small to present reliable estimates of
variation in leave taking by sexual orientation. The Detailed Results Appendix presents some limited
tabulations. Given the very small sample sizes, even these tabulations should be interpreted with
extreme care.
Abt Associates Inc.
▌pg. 143
Family and Medical Leave in 2012: Final Report
8. Worksite Responses and Perceptions
The FMLA attempts to balance the need for leave by employees against the disruption (and cost) of
leave incurred by worksites. The FMLA statute’s “purposes” explicitly discuss this balance (Public
Law 103-3 § 2(b):
(1) to balance the demands of the workplace with the needs of families, to promote the stability
and economic security of families, and to promote national interests in preserving family
integrity;
(2) to entitle employees to take reasonable leave for medical reasons, for the birth or adoption of
a child, and for the care of a child, spouse, or parent who has a serious health condition;
(3) to accomplish the purposes described in paragraphs (1) and (2) in a manner that
accommodates the legitimate interests of worksites
This chapter considers evidence of such costs, the reported disruption that leave causes, and how
worksites deal with that disruption. Section 8.1 reports worksites’ descriptions of how they handle the
work of those on leave. Section 8.2 reports employees’ descriptions of how their work was handled
while they or their coworkers were on leave. Section 8.3 tabulates worksites’ responses regarding the
difficulty of dealing with various types of leave. Section 8.4 concludes with a discussion of worksites’
perceptions of misuse of the FMLA.
As noted in Chapter 1, unless otherwise noted, when discussing results from the Worksite Survey we
focus on estimates weighted by the number of employees at the worksite (not weighted by worksite)
for 50/75 worksites (i.e., worksites that have 50 employees within 75 miles and are, therefore, large
enough to have covered employees).
8.1
Worksites’ Perspective on How Work is Covered
When an employee is out on leave, the worksite faces an ongoing challenge to deploy available
personnel in a manner that sustains the worksite’s overall productivity. Columns of Exhibit 8.1.1
tabulate worksite responses to a question about the most frequently used methods to cover the tasks of
employees on long leave (i.e., a week or longer). Considering all worksites—covered and
uncovered—the most common response, by far, was to temporarily assign the work to other
employees (74.1% of employees work at these worksites). This is the most frequently used method
regardless of coverage and is reported by 64.5% of worksites. The only other common response is to
hire a temporary replacement (11.5% of employees work at these worksites overall; not different
between covered and uncovered). This is reported by 3.2% of worksites. Results are similar to those
from the 2000 survey.
Abt Associates Inc.
▌pg. 144
Family and Medical Leave in 2012: Final Report
Exhibit 8.1.1 Most frequently used method by worksites to cover work when employees take leave for a week or longer, by coverage
2012
2012
Weighted by employees at worksite
Weighted by worksite
Method most frequently used by employers
All
Uncovered
Covered
50/75
All
Uncovered
Covered
to cover work when employees take week or
worksites
worksites
worksites
worksites
worksites]
worksites
worksites
longer leave
% [95% CI]
% [95% CI]
% [95% CI]
% [95% CI]
% [95% CI
% [95% CI]
% [95% CI]
Assign work temporarily to other employees
74.1
80.9
71.3
69.6
64.5
61.8
75.6
[64.3-84.0]
[76.5-85.2]
[58.2-84.3]
[55.2-84.1]
[58.7-70.2]
[55.5-68.0]
[65.2-85.9]
Hire a temporary replacement
11.5
4.2
14.6
15.9
3.2
2.2
7.3
[3.4-19.5]
[1.9-6.6]
[3.7-25.5]
[3.8-28.0]
[1.5-4.8]
[1.1-3.2]
[1.0-13.5]
Call-in an employee on vacation
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.1
0.1
0.2
[-0.1-0.6]
[-0.1-0.7]
[-0.2-0.7]
[-0.2-0.8]
[-0.0-0.2]
[-0.0-0.2]
[-0.2-0.7]
Hire a permanent replacement
0.4
1.0
0.2
0.1
0.6
0.7
0.3
[-0.1-0.9]
[-0.2-2.2]
[-0.0-0.4]
[-0.0-0.3]
[-0.2-1.5]
[-0.3-1.7]
[-0.2-0.9]
Put the work on hold until the employee returns
3.2
6.3
1.9
2.1
17.8
21.5
2.3
from leave
[1.4-5.0]
[4.5-8.0]
[-0.5-4.3]
[-0.6-4.8]
[13.1-22.4]
[15.7-27.4]
[-1.1-5.7]
Have the employee perform some work while on
0.3
0.5
0.1
0.0
1.7
1.8
1.3
leave
[0.0-0.5]
[0.0-1.0]
[-0.1-0.4]
[-0.0-0.1]
[0.6-2.8]
[0.5-3.1]
[-1.1-3.7]
Cover work some other way
9.4
5.7
11.0
11.4
10.7
10.2
12.7
[1.9-17.0]
[3.1-8.3]
[0.5-21.6]
[-0.4-23.2]
[6.4-15.0]
[5.3-15.1]
[3.6-21.8]
Don’t know/refused
0.8
1.2
0.6
0.6
1.5
1.8
0.2
[0.3-1.2]
[0.3-2.1]
[0.1-1.0]
[0.1-1.1]
[0.0-2.9]
[-0.0-3.6]
[0.0-0.5]
Unweighted N
1,623
704
919
755
1,623
704
919
Source: 2012 Worksite Survey Q61bX; 2000 Report Table A2-6.5.
Sample: Asked of all worksites. 2012 Covered/Uncovered stratification reflects worksites’ self-reported coverage under the FMLA.
Cells with “N/A” indicate that the data were not reported in the 2000 Report.
Abt Associates Inc.
50/75
worksites
% [95% CI]
83.3
[72.5-94.0]
6.3
[2.2-10.4]
0.7
[-0.5-1.8]
0.3
[-0.1-0.6]
1.5
[-0.0-3.1]
0.2
[-0.1-0.4]
7.4
[-2.4-17.2]
0.4
[0.0-0.8]
755
2000
Weighted
by worksite
All
worksites
% [95% CI]
74.5
[66.1-82.9]
18.0
[10.7-25.3]
N/A
N/A
2.4
[0.3-4.5]
N/A
4.3
[0-8.6]
N/A
643
▌pg. 145
Family and Medical Leave in 2012: Final Report
Worksite strategies for covering work vary with the nature of the leave (see Exhibits 8.1.2 and
Exhibits 8.1.3). Short leaves are more likely to be handled by putting the work on hold until the
employee returns; longer leaves are more likely to be handled by assigning the work temporarily to
other employees, hiring a temporary replacement, or calling in an employee on vacation. For long
leaves (i.e., a week or more), 70.5% of worksites report that employees are frequently asked to
perform some work while on leave. This is common for both covered (74.7%) and uncovered (69.3%)
worksites. This may be inconsistent with the FMLA, which prohibits employers from interfering with
employees while on leave.
Abt Associates Inc.
▌pg. 146
Family and Medical Leave in 2012: Final Report
Exhibit 8.1.2 Methods used by worksites to cover work when employees take leave for worksites, by coverage and length of leave, weighted by employees at
worksite
Percent of worksites that use the following
methods to cover work when employees take
leave
Assign work temporarily to other employees
Hire a temporary replacement
Call-in an employee on vacation
Hire a permanent replacement
Put the work on hold until the employee returns from
leave
Have the employee perform some work while on
leave
Cover work some other way
Unweighted N
Abt Associates Inc.
All worksites, weighted by employees at worksite
Leave for Scheduled Unschedweek or
leave <=1 uled leave
Overall*
longer
day
for <=1 day
Other
% [95 CI]
% [95 CI]
% [95 CI]
% [95 CI]
% [95 CI]
91.8
88.8
53.1
56.9
15.7
[88.9-94.6] [78.4-99.2] [41.8-64.4] [45.2-68.6]
[8.3-23.1]
52.1
70.7
7.5
5.2
8.6
[41.3-62.9] [60.7-80.6]
[3.9-11.2]
[2.9-7.4]
[3.8-13.3]
18.0
59.6
36.5
44.2
4.6
[11.7-24.4] [46.0-73.3] [18.5-54.5] [24.7-63.7]
[2.1-7.2]
14.4
61.7
0.1
0.1
8.5
[7.3-21.5] [43.4-79.9]
[-0.1-0.3]
[-0.1-0.4]
[3.4-13.6]
46.2
28.3
72.9
72.4
13.1
[34.7-57.8] [14.5-42.1] [52.8-93.0] [52.4-92.5] [-0.2-26.5]
16.1
74.9
16.2
16.2
7.4
[8.6-23.6] [59.8-90.0]
[5.2-27.2]
[5.3-27.1]
[0.7-14.2]
24.6
95.0
53.0
53.6
22.9
[13.8-35.4] [91.1-98.9] [20.3-85.8] [14.9-92.3] [-0.6-46.3]
1,812
Uncovered worksites, weighted by employees at worksite
Leave for Scheduled Unschedweek or
leave <=1 uled leave
Overall*
longer
day
for <=1 day
Other
% [95 CI]
% [95 CI]
% [95 CI]
% [95 CI]
% [95 CI]
83.0
94.3
65.4
66.4
14.8
[78.8-87.2] [91.2-97.3] [58.2-72.5] [59.3-73.4] [10.5-19.1]
32.9
57.4
7.3
6.7
6.6
[25.8-39.9] [45.8-69.0]
[3.2-11.5]
[2.3-11.2]
[2.9-10.3]
13.2
47.5
19.3
21.3
12.1
[8.5-17.9] [27.8-67.2]
[7.2-31.4]
[8.8-33.8]
[3.2-20.9]
10.8
22.7
0.5
0.6
10.3
[7.9-13.6]
[9.4-35.9]
[-0.5-1.5]
[-0.4-1.7]
[1.8-18.8]
38.6
39.9
73.8
73.9
11.0
[31.4-45.7] [30.2-49.6] [64.6-83.1] [64.5-83.2]
[4.7-17.2]
15.3
76.3
36.8
34.7
5.5
[9.2-21.4] [64.8-87.8] [12.1-61.5] [10.1-59.3] [-0.4-11.5]
15.5
90.7
56.6
63.5
16.2
[10.2-20.8] [85.0-96.4] [40.5-72.6] [49.6-77.5]
[6.9-25.5]
824
▌pg. 147
Family and Medical Leave in 2012: Final Report
Covered worksites, weighted by employees at worksite
50/75 worksites, weighted by employees at worksite
Leave for Scheduled UnschedLeave for Scheduled UnschedPercent of worksites that use the following
week or
leave <=1 uled leave
week or
leave <=1 uled leave
methods to cover work when employees take
Overall*
longer
day
for <=1 day
Other
Overall*
longer
day
for <=1 day
Other
leave
% [95 CI]
% [95 CI]
% [95 CI]
% [95 CI]
% [95 CI]
% [95 CI]
% [95 CI]
% [95 CI]
% [95 CI]
% [95 CI]
Assign work temporarily to other employees
95.4
86.8
48.6
53.4
16.0
95.5
85.6
48.1
51.6
15.1
[92.1-98.8] [72.8-100.8] [34.3-62.9] [38.7-68.2]
[6.0-26.1] [91.7-99.2] [69.9-101.2] [32.0-64.3] [35.6-67.7]
[4.4-25.8]
Hire a temporary replacement
60.2
73.7
7.6
4.8
9.0
61.5
73.8
7.5
4.4
6.2
[44.5-75.9] [61.8-85.7]
[3.0-12.2]
[2.3-7.3]
[3.4-14.7] [43.6-79.5] [61.4-86.2]
[2.6-12.3]
[1.8-6.9]
[3.4-9.0]
Call-in an employee on vacation
20.1
63.0
41.3
50.6
2.6
20.8
63.1
43.3
53.0
2.6
[11.3-28.8] [46.6-79.4] [19.1-63.4] [27.0-74.1]
[0.8-4.4] [10.8-30.7] [45.5-80.8] [19.9-66.7] [28.3-77.7]
[0.7-4.6]
Hire a permanent replacement
15.9
72.8
0.0
0.0
7.9
14.6
71.6
0.0
0.0
6.6
[5.9-25.9] [57.0-88.5]
[0.0-0.0]
[0.0-0.0]
[2.2-13.7]
[4.0-25.3] [53.8-89.4]
[0.0-0.0]
[0.0-0.0]
[1.4-11.9]
Put the work on hold until the employee returns
49.5
24.5
72.6
72.0
13.8
53.0
24.0
72.3
71.9
13.9
from leave
[33.3-65.6]
[7.0-42.0] [46.2-99.0] [45.6-98.4]
[-3.7-31.3] [35.7-70.2]
[5.9-42.1] [44.7-100.0] [44.2-99.6]
[-4.3-32.2]
Have the employee perform some work while on
16.4
74.4
8.1
8.9
8.2
15.9
73.1
5.2
5.5
9.3
leave
[5.9-26.9] [55.3-93.4]
[2.7-13.6]
[3.2-14.7]
[0.4-16.0]
[5.0-26.8] [49.1-97.1]
[0.7-9.7]
[0.9-10.1]
[0.2-18.4]
Cover work some other way
28.4
96.0
52.2
51.3
24.4
27.4
95.9
49.0
48.0
27.1
[12.0-44.8] [91.4-100.5]
[4.8-99.7]
[4.5-98.2]
[-6.5-55.3]
[9.1-45.8] [90.5-101.4] [-6.0-104.1] [-6.1-102.2] [-10.8-64.9]
Unweighted N
988
808
* Worksites that report “yes” or “depends” to using the method listed (reported in the “Overall” column) were asked the length of leave that worksites used the method.
Source: Worksite Survey Q61X, Q61aX.
Rows within panels may sum to >100% since respondent could select more than one category.
Sample: Asked of all worksites. Covered/Uncovered stratification reflects worksites’ self-reported coverage under the FMLA.
Abt Associates Inc.
▌pg. 148
Family and Medical Leave in 2012: Final Report
Exhibit 8.1.3 Methods used by worksites to cover work when employees take leave for worksites, by coverage and length of leave, weighted by worksite
Percent of worksites that use the following
methods to cover work when employees take
leave
Assign work temporarily to other employees
Hire a temporary replacement
Call-in an employee on vacation
Hire a permanent replacement
Put the work on hold until the employee returns from
leave
Have the employee perform some work while on
leave
Cover work some other way
Unweighted N
Abt Associates Inc.
Overall*
% [95 CI]
64.0
[58.9-69.0]
24.7
[20.9-28.4]
7.5
[5.0-9.9]
7.9
[6.2-9.6]
43.1
[38.0-48.2]
15.1
[11.7-18.4]
17.9
[13.4-22.5]
All worksites, weighted by worksite
Leave for Scheduled Unschedweek or
leave <=1 uled leave
longer
day
for <=1 day
% [95 CI]
% [95 CI]
% [95 CI]
91.0
64.3
68.7
[85.6-96.3] [58.3-70.2] [62.1-75.3]
61.0
11.0
9.4
[53.2-68.8]
[5.8-16.2]
[3.3-15.6]
58.5
31.9
35.0
[40.1-76.9] [13.0-50.9] [15.7-54.2]
34.2
0.1
0.2
[11.6-56.8]
[-0.1-0.2]
[-0.1-0.5]
53.0
74.9
76.6
[46.8-59.1] [67.3-82.4] [69.5-83.8]
70.5
32.6
36.1
[59.0-82.1] [19.0-46.3] [22.4-49.8]
89.2
62.6
60.7
[82.9-95.6] [53.2-72.0] [51.9-69.6]
1,812
Other
% [95 CI]
12.4
[7.4-17.5]
11.8
[7.9-15.6]
11.0
[0.3-21.7]
20.0
[6.9-33.1]
11.0
[6.4-15.6]
8.7
[1.4-16.0]
20.5
[8.4-32.5]
Uncovered worksites, weighted by worksite
Leave for Scheduled Unschedweek or
leave <=1 uled leave
Overall*
longer
day
for <=1 day
Other
% [95 CI]
% [95 CI]
% [95 CI]
% [95 CI]
% [95 CI]
58.8
89.8
68.6
71.7
12.9
[53.0-64.7] [83.8-95.8] [63.1-74.1] [66.2-77.3]
[7.9-17.9]
19.9
55.2
8.9
8.7
9.1
[15.1-24.8] [46.3-64.1]
[2.3-15.4]
[0.4-16.9]
[4.4-13.7]
6.6
58.9
31.6
32.4
14.1
[3.9-9.4] [37.5-80.3]
[9.2-53.9] [10.0-54.9]
[0.6-27.5]
6.4
24.0
0.1
0.3
15.5
[4.2-8.7]
[5.1-43.0]
[-0.1-0.3]
[-0.2-0.8]
[1.8-29.2]
45.4
54.7
74.6
76.7
11.4
[39.3-51.5] [48.2-61.1] [67.2-82.0] [69.9-83.5]
[7.0-15.8]
13.9
69.3
37.6
40.3
10.7
[9.7-18.2] [55.4-83.2] [19.9-55.3] [23.5-57.2]
[1.1-20.3]
15.7
86.3
65.1
62.6
26.3
[10.4-21.0] [77.7-94.9] [54.0-76.3] [51.0-74.1] [11.7-41.0]
824
▌pg. 149
Family and Medical Leave in 2012: Final Report
Covered worksites, weighted by worksite
50/75 worksites, weighted by worksite
Leave for Scheduled UnschedLeave for Scheduled UnschedPercent of worksites that use the following
week or
leave <=1 uled leave
week or
leave <=1 uled leave
methods to cover work when employees take
Overall*
longer
day
for <=1 day
Other
Overall*
longer
day
for <=1 day
leave
% [95 CI]
% [95 CI]
% [95 CI]
% [95 CI]
% [95 CI]
% [95 CI]
% [95 CI]
% [95 CI]
% [95 CI]
Assign work temporarily to other employees
89.8
94.8
50.0
58.6
10.9
92.8
94.5
45.7
61.9
[83.6-96.0] [89.6-99.9] [41.0-59.1] [48.6-68.7]
[3.9-17.9] [83.4-102.2] [90.9-98.1] [27.8-63.7] [51.9-71.9]
Hire a temporary replacement
48.5
73.0
15.3
11.0
17.4
57.1
65.9
16.2
5.1
[38.9-58.0] [63.5-82.6]
[2.1-28.5]
[0.3-21.7]
[7.2-27.6] [44.6-69.6] [44.2-87.6]
[0.1-32.2]
[1.7-8.5]
Call-in an employee on vacation
11.7
57.5
32.9
42.1
2.3
13.7
66.7
34.3
53.6
[7.4-16.0] [34.7-80.3]
[9.8-56.0] [18.7-65.5]
[0.5-4.1]
[7.6-19.8] [57.1-76.2] [24.5-44.1] [43.6-63.6]
Hire a permanent replacement
15.3
55.9
0.0
0.0
29.7
10.5
43.8
0.0
0.0
[8.8-21.7] [27.2-84.5]
[0.0-0.0]
[0.0-0.0]
[0.3-59.2]
[5.8-15.3] [25.8-61.9]
[0.0-0.0]
[0.0-0.0]
Put the work on hold until the employee returns
31.7
40.8
76.7
76.2
8.4
36.7
25.3
83.3
83.6
from leave
[22.1-41.2] [21.6-60.0] [62.1-91.3] [61.7-90.8]
[-2.0-18.8] [15.7-57.7]
[-2.7-53.2] [65.0-101.7] [65.6-101.7]
Have the employee perform some work while on
20.7
74.7
15.8
21.9
1.9
16.1
80.3
8.3
10.3
leave
[10.4-31.1] [50.1-99.4]
[1.7-30.0]
[6.6-37.1]
[0.5-3.4]
[6.9-25.4] [57.5-103.2]
[-2.6-19.1]
[-2.6-23.1]
Cover work some other way
29.1
97.2
55.8
55.7
4.7
22.4
96.3
44.8
42.8
[22.3-36.0] [94.7-99.6] [37.9-73.8] [37.8-73.5]
[1.7-7.6]
[8.6-36.3] [91.7-100.8]
[-6.6-96.2]
[-7.6-93.2]
Unweighted N
988
808
* Worksites that report “yes” or “depends” to using the method listed (reported in the “Overall” column) were asked the length of leave that worksites used the method.
Source: Worksite Survey Q61X, Q61aX.
Rows within panels may sum to >100% since respondent could select more than one category.
Sample: Asked of all worksites. Covered/Uncovered stratification reflects worksites’ self-reported coverage under the FMLA.
Abt Associates Inc.
Other
% [95 CI]
15.5
[5.6-25.4]
15.5
[-3.4-34.4]
4.1
[1.1-7.1]
12.5
[3.6-21.5]
3.6
[-0.5-7.7]
5.9
[-1.0-12.7]
6.0
[-0.9-13.0]
▌pg. 150
Family and Medical Leave in 2012: Final Report
8.2
Employee’s Perspective on How Work is Covered
Section 8.1 discussed worksites’ reports of how work was covered while employees were on leave.
This section considers the same issue from the employee’s perspective.
Exhibit 8.2.1 tabulates employees’ reports of how work was covered during their leave (asked of
leave takers) and Exhibit 8.2.2 tabulates employees’ reports of how the leave of coworkers affected
them (asked of all employees). Three-quarters of employees who took leave report that their work
was covered by another employee (76.3%). Another quarter reported that their work went undone
until they returned (24.5%). Results are similar to those from the 1995 and 2000 surveys.
Exhibit 8.2.1 How work was covered while on leave among leave takers
2012
2000
Eligible and
How work was covered
All leave
covered
All other
All leave
while the employee was on
takers
employees
leave takers
takers
leave
% [95% CI]
% [95% CI]
% [95% CI]
% [95% CI]
Cover your work by assigning
76.3
76.7
75.6
76.5
it to other employees?
[73.0-79.5]
[73.7-79.7]
[69.8-81.5]
[73.1-79.9]
Hire a permanent employee to
8.5
6.0
12.5
9.0
cover your work?
[6.5-10.6]
[3.7-8.4]
[8.7-16.4]
[7.4-10.6]
Hire a temporary employee to
13.5
13.0
14.2
12.7
cover your work?
[11.1-15.8]
[10.4-15.7]
[10.0-18.3]
[10.5-14.9]
Let your work go undone until
24.4
24.3
24.6
47.1
you returned?
[21.5-27.3]
[20.9-27.7]
[19.1-30.0]
[43.9-50.3]
Cover your work in some other
18.5
17.0
20.8
N/A
way?
[15.5-21.5]
[13.6-20.4]
[15.5-26.1]
Don’t know/refused
0.6
0.2
1.2
N/A
[-0.3-1.4]
[-0.1-0.4]
[-0.8-3.2]
Unweighted N
1,276
864
412
1,739
Columns may sum to >100% since respondent could select more than one category.
Source: 2012 Employee Survey A52; 2000 Report Table A2-6.7.
2012 Sample: Employees who took leave in the past 12 months.
2000 and 1995 Sample: Employees who took leave in the past 18 months.
Cells with “N/A” indicate that the data were not reported in the 2000 Report.
1995
All leave
takers
% [95% CI]
72.3
[69.1-75.5]
6.3
[4.8-7.8]
16.8
[13.8-19.8]
N/A
N/A
N/A
1,097
In addition to those questions asked of employees who took leave, all employees were asked how
their work changed when their coworkers took leave (Exhibit 8.2.2). Half report none of the above;
that is, there was presumably no change in their work (51.0%). A third respond that they took on
more duties (34.1%) and a quarter report that they worked more hours (26.0%) or took on different
job responsibilities (25.7%). Each of these responses is less common than in 2000. We note, however,
that the 2012 survey added response categories (in particular, “none of the above”), so the questions
are not exactly comparable.
Abt Associates Inc.
▌pg. 151
Family and Medical Leave in 2012: Final Report
Exhibit 8.2.2 How employee’s work changed when coworkers took leave
2012
2000
Eligible and
covered
All other
How respondents work changed when
All
employees
leave takers
All
coworker took leave
% [95% CI]
% [95% CI]
% [95% CI]
% [95% CI]
Respondent worked more hours than usual
26.0
24.5
29.8
32.1
[21.9-30.1]
[19.7-29.3]
[22.1-37.5]
[29.1-35.1]
Respondent worked a shift that was not
15.1
14.8
15.7
22.9
normally worked
[12.0-18.1]
[11.1-18.5]
[10.5-21.0]
[19.6-26.2]
Respondent took on additional duties
34.1
34.3
33.8
46.2
[29.7-38.6]
[29.1-39.4]
[25.7-41.9]
[42.9-49.5]
Respondent took on different job
25.7
25.7
26.0
N/A
responsibilities
[21.9-29.6]
[20.9-30.4]
[19.3-32.7]
None of the above
51.0
53.3
45.2
N/A
[46.7-55.4]
[47.7-58.8]
[37.5-52.9]
Don’t know/refused
0.3
0.0
1.1
N/A
[-0.2-0.9]
[-0.0-0.1]
[-1.0-3.1]
Unweighted N
1,550
1,199
351
N/A
Columns may sum to >100% since respondents who did not select “none of the above” could select more than
one category.
2012 Source: Employee Survey E6; 2000 Report Table A1-4.22.
2012 Sample: Asked of all employees.
Cells with “N/A” indicate that the data were not reported in the 2000 Report.
Abt Associates Inc.
▌pg. 152
Family and Medical Leave in 2012: Final Report
8.3
Worksites’ Difficulties Related to Leave Taking
Section 8.1 and Section 8.2 above summarized the various approaches worksites have adopted in
order to accommodate employees who are on leave. In critiquing the FMLA, some commentators
have expressed concern about the potential burden that these accommodations place on worksites. For
example, Associated Financial Group writes:
[T]he FMLA provides an absolute leave right, regardless of the difficulty or hardship the absence
may impose upon the worksite (whereas the ADA takes “undue hardship” into consideration
when determining whether an accommodation is reasonable, the FMLA has no such get-out-ofjail-free provision). (Olney, 2011)
The Worksite Survey asked directly how easy or difficult worksites find it to deal with various types
of leave (Exhibits 8.3.1 and 8.3.2). Overall—pooling covered and uncovered worksites— and
weighting each worksite equally—the easiest leave to deal with is short and planned, with less than a
quarter reporting any difficulty (23.5%=16.2% “very difficult” + 7.3% “somewhat difficult”).
Weighted by the number of employees at the worksite, 21.8% of employees work at worksites that
report any difficulty with planned short-term leave (21.8%= 2.9%+18.9%). Worksites report that
other types of leave are harder to deal with. In increasing order of difficulty: planned long-term leave
(44.1% =15.5%+28.6%), planned episodic or intermittent leave (31.3%=6.3%+25.0%), unplanned
episodic or intermittent leave (51.0%=13.9%+37.1%), and unscheduled leave of any duration
(54.4%=14.4%+40.0%). Considering results weighted by employees (Exhibit 8.3.1), more than a
third of employees work at worksites that have any difficulty with planned long-term leave
(39.0%=6.6%+32.4%); 44.6% work at worksites that report difficulty with planned episodic or
intermittent leave (44.6%=12.1%+32.5%); two-thirds work at worksites that report difficulty with
unplanned episodic or intermittent leave (67.2%=26.2%+41.0%); and 69.1% of employees work at
worksites that report having any difficulty with unscheduled leave of any duration
(69.1%=18.5%+50.6%).
Abt Associates Inc.
▌pg. 153
Family and Medical Leave in 2012: Final Report
Exhibit 8.3.1 Worksites' abilities to deal with different types of leave, by coverage, weighted by employees at worksite
Percent of worksites reporting
ease/difficulty of dealing with
Planned long-term leave for a family or
medical reason
Planned short-term leave
Planned episodic or intermittent leave
Unplanned episodic or intermittent leave
Unscheduled leave of any duration
Unweighted N
Percent of worksites reporting
ease/difficulty of dealing with
Planned long-term leave for a family or
medical reason
Planned short-term leave
Planned episodic or intermittent leave
Unplanned episodic or intermittent leave
Unscheduled leave of any duration
All worksites, weighted by employees at worksite
Uncovered worksites, weighted by employees at worksite
Somewhat Somewhat
Very
DK/
Somewhat Somewhat
Very
DK/
Very easy
easy
difficult
difficult
refused
Very easy
easy
difficult
difficult
refused
% [95% CI] % [95% CI] % [95% CI] % [95% CI] % [95% CI] % [95% CI] % [95% CI] % [95% CI] % [95% CI] % [95% CI]
12.7
45.8
32.4
6.6
2.5
17.1
31.3
33.3
11.9
6.4
[7.6-17.8] [35.1-56.5] [24.8-40.0]
[4.4-8.8]
[1.2-3.8] [13.2-21.1] [26.1-36.5] [27.6-38.9]
[9.2-14.7]
[2.8-10.0]
15.3
59.6
18.9
2.9
3.3
23.7
50.0
16.3
4.2
5.8
[10.2-20.4] [51.2-68.1] [12.6-25.3]
[1.2-4.6]
[1.0-5.5] [18.5-28.9] [42.6-57.3] [11.8-20.9]
[2.5-5.9]
[2.0-9.6]
10.4
41.6
32.5
12.1
3.3
18.0
39.4
29.7
5.0
7.8
[7.2-13.7] [32.3-50.9] [24.1-41.0]
[5.2-19.1]
[1.9-4.7] [11.8-24.3] [31.8-47.1] [23.1-36.3]
[3.1-6.9]
[4.1-11.6]
5.8
24.1
41.0
26.2
2.8
12.2
26.2
39.5
16.1
6.1
[4.0-7.6] [13.3-34.9] [30.6-51.4] [16.3-36.1]
[1.7-4.0]
[8.5-15.9] [19.2-33.1] [33.3-45.7] [10.9-21.3]
[3.0-9.1]
4.8
23.6
50.6
18.5
2.6
10.3
20.8
48.6
14.2
6.1
[3.0-6.6] [12.5-34.7] [39.8-61.4] [10.9-26.0]
[1.4-3.7]
[6.3-14.4] [16.4-25.2] [42.1-55.1]
[8.8-19.6]
[2.9-9.3]
1,812
824
Covered worksites, weighted by employees at worksite
50/75 worksites, weighted by employees at worksite
Somewhat Somewhat
Very
DK/
Somewhat Somewhat
Very
DK/
Very easy
easy
difficult
difficult
refused
Very easy
easy
difficult
difficult
refused
% [95% CI] % [95% CI] % [95% CI] % [95% CI] % [95% CI] % [95% CI] % [95% CI] % [95% CI] % [95% CI] % [95% CI]
10.9
51.9
32.0
4.3
0.9
8.8
53.8
32.8
4.0
0.6
[5.0-16.7] [37.9-65.9] [21.0-43.0]
[1.6-7.1]
[0.3-1.5]
[4.6-12.9] [38.8-68.7] [20.6-45.0]
[1.0-7.0]
[0.0-1.1]
11.7
63.7
20.0
2.3
2.2
9.2
65.8
20.8
2.1
2.1
[6.0-17.4] [51.9-75.5] [10.9-29.1]
[0.2-4.5]
[-0.6-5.0]
[5.4-13.0] [53.2-78.5] [10.6-30.9]
[-0.2-4.4]
[-1.0-5.3]
7.2
42.5
33.7
15.1
1.4
6.4
40.6
35.4
16.4
1.1
[4.2-10.3] [27.9-57.1] [20.6-46.9]
[5.4-24.9]
[0.6-2.2]
[3.5-9.3] [23.8-57.5] [20.8-50.1]
[5.5-27.3]
[0.3-1.9]
3.1
23.3
41.7
30.5
1.5
2.7
22.4
42.9
30.7
1.3
[1.4-4.8]
[7.8-38.8] [27.5-55.9] [15.6-45.3]
[0.7-2.3]
[1.2-4.2]
[4.9-39.8] [27.0-58.7] [14.3-47.1]
[0.5-2.2]
2.5
24.7
51.4
20.3
1.1
2.4
24.1
53.3
19.3
0.9
[1.0-3.9]
[9.4-40.1] [36.2-66.7]
[9.7-30.8]
[0.4-1.8]
[0.9-3.9]
[6.8-41.4] [36.4-70.2]
[7.9-30.6]
[0.2-1.6]
988
808
Unweighted N
Source: Worksite Survey Q67.
Sample: Asked of all employers. Covered/Uncovered stratification reflects worksites’ self-reported coverage under the FMLA.
Abt Associates Inc.
▌pg. 154
Family and Medical Leave in 2012: Final Report
Exhibit 8.3.2 Worksites' abilities to deal with different types of leave, by coverage, weighted by worksite
Percent of worksites reporting
ease/difficulty of dealing with
Planned long-term leave for a family or
medical reason
Planned short-term leave
Planned episodic or intermittent leave
Unplanned episodic or intermittent leave
Unscheduled leave of any duration
Unweighted N
Percent of worksites reporting
ease/difficulty of dealing with
Planned long-term leave for a family or
medical reason
Planned short-term leave
Planned episodic or intermittent leave
Unplanned episodic or intermittent leave
Unscheduled leave of any duration
Very easy
% [95% CI]
21.5
[15.4-27.5]
28.0
[20.7-35.3]
24.3
[16.9-31.7]
17.6
[12.2-23.1]
16.1
[10.5-21.7]
All worksites, weighted by worksite
Uncovered worksites, weighted by worksite
Somewhat Somewhat
Very
DK/
Somewhat Somewhat
Very
DK/
easy
difficult
difficult
refused
Very easy
easy
difficult
difficult
refused
% [95% CI] % [95% CI] % [95% CI] % [95% CI] % [95% CI] % [95% CI] % [95% CI] % [95% CI] % [95% CI]
27.5
28.6
15.5
7.0
23.5
24.1
28.0
16.5
7.8
[23.5-31.5] [24.5-32.7] [11.0-19.9]
[4.5-9.4] [17.4-29.6] [18.4-29.9] [23.3-32.8] [11.9-21.2]
[4.7-10.8]
41.9
16.2
7.3
6.6
29.6
39.3
15.8
7.9
7.4
[37.3-46.5] [11.4-20.9]
[4.4-10.1]
[3.8-9.5] [21.5-37.6] [33.0-45.6] [10.6-21.0]
[4.6-11.1]
[3.8-11.1]
36.0
25.0
6.3
8.3
26.0
32.5
25.4
6.8
9.2
[31.5-40.6] [20.7-29.4]
[3.7-9.0]
[4.7-12.0] [17.5-34.5] [25.8-39.2] [20.3-30.6]
[3.6-10.1]
[4.9-13.4]
23.5
37.1
13.9
7.8
19.2
21.8
36.4
13.8
8.8
[18.9-28.2] [31.7-42.5] [11.1-16.7]
[4.8-10.9] [12.9-25.4] [16.0-27.7] [29.9-42.9]
[9.7-17.9]
[5.1-12.5]
21.5
40.0
14.4
8.0
18.3
18.9
40.0
13.8
9.0
[17.0-25.9] [34.0-46.0] [11.4-17.5]
[4.9-11.0] [11.9-24.7] [14.3-23.5] [34.2-45.8]
[9.8-17.8]
[5.2-12.8]
1,812
824
Covered worksites, weighted by worksite
50/75 worksites, weighted by worksite
Somewhat Somewhat
Very
DK/
Somewhat Somewhat
Very
DK/
Very easy
easy
difficult
difficult
refused
Very easy
easy
difficult
difficult
refused
% [95% CI] % [95% CI] % [95% CI] % [95% CI] % [95% CI] % [95% CI] % [95% CI] % [95% CI] % [95% CI] % [95% CI]
11.2
44.7
31.3
10.0
2.8
7.3
47.2
41.4
3.3
0.8
[1.0-21.5] [33.9-55.4] [22.7-39.9]
[3.8-16.1]
[-0.2-5.8]
[3.8-10.8] [35.4-59.1] [30.1-52.7]
[1.4-5.2]
[0.0-1.6]
20.2
55.0
17.8
4.3
2.7
10.6
63.4
23.9
1.4
0.7
[10.1-30.2] [45.1-65.0]
[8.6-27.1]
[1.0-7.7]
[-0.3-5.6]
[6.0-15.1] [53.7-73.1] [13.0-34.8]
[0.1-2.6]
[0.2-1.2]
15.5
53.8
23.0
3.7
4.1
7.3
54.9
29.3
6.5
1.9
[8.9-22.0] [47.1-60.4] [15.0-31.0]
[1.8-5.6]
[0.4-7.7]
[3.8-10.9] [38.2-71.6] [16.5-42.1]
[3.0-10.0]
[0.6-3.3]
10.0
32.1
40.5
14.4
3.0
3.0
35.6
45.0
14.3
2.1
[1.6-18.4] [24.0-40.1] [30.4-50.5]
[8.4-20.5]
[0.1-6.0]
[1.3-4.7] [20.8-50.3] [32.7-57.2]
[8.1-20.6]
[0.7-3.6]
5.0
34.2
40.3
17.8
2.8
3.0
36.3
51.2
8.6
0.8
[0.3-9.7] [24.4-44.0] [25.5-55.0] [10.2-25.4]
[-0.2-5.7]
[1.2-4.8] [21.8-50.8] [38.8-63.7]
[4.6-12.6]
[0.3-1.4]
988
808
Unweighted N
Source: Worksite Survey Q67.
Sample: Asked of all worksites. Covered/Uncovered stratification reflects worksites’ self-reported coverage under the FMLA.
Abt Associates Inc.
▌pg. 155
Family and Medical Leave in 2012: Final Report
8.4
Perceptions of Misuse of the FMLA
As with many employee legal rights, it is not unexpected that concerns will be raised about the
possible misuse of the FMLA benefit by employees. For example, the Society for Human Resource
Management’s (SHRM) website states:
The Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) is an employee entitlement, and sometimes
employees believe that it entitles them to take off from work for almost any reason at almost any
time. Some even might see it as a safety net in case their vacation request is denied. Worksites
have long decried abuse of the FMLA, but there are actions they can take to help minimize such
abuse. (Clabault, 2011)
Very few covered worksites report suspicion of FMLA misuse (2.5%; unweighted N=115).
Confirmed misuse at covered worksites appears to be even rarer: only 1.6% of worksites report any
misuse (unweighted N=98). See the Detailed Results Volume for additional detail.
8.5
Effects of the FMLA
The Worksite Survey also asked covered worksites a set of broader questions about the effects of
complying with the FMLA on business operations. Specifically, the Worksite Survey asked covered
worksites the following: “Q56. Thinking about employee productivity, absenteeism, turnover, career
advancement and morale, as well as the business’ profitability, what effect has complying with FMLA
had on this location?” Among 50/75 worksites and weighting by employees at the worksite, nearly a
third of employees work at worksites that report that complying with FMLA has some negative effect
(29.3%=9.3% “very negative” + 20.0% “somewhat negative”; Exhibit 8.5.1; Exhibit 8.5.2 provides
more detail). 42 Weighting by worksites, the corresponding figures are 1.0% who report a very
negative effect and 7.0 percent who report a somewhat negative effect (Exhibit 8.5.2).
42
Q24 of the 2000 Establishment Survey asked a similar question about the effect of complying with the
FMLA, but it included eight distinct areas that worksites were asked about separately, and only three
response categories (see Appendix C of the Methodology Report for more detail). Therefore, the 2012
results are not comparable to the 2000 results.
Abt Associates Inc.
▌pg. 156
Family and Medical Leave in 2012: Final Report
Exhibit 8.5.1 Effect of complying with the FMLA on covered worksites
Source: Worksite Survey Q56. Reflects self-reported covered worksites with at least 50 employees within 75
miles. Worksites that reported “don’t know” or refused are not included.
Sample: Asked of all worksites that self-report that they are covered by the FMLA.
Exhibit 8.5.2 Effect of complying with the FMLA on covered worksites
Effect of compliance
Very positive
Somewhat positive
Somewhat negative
Very negative
No noticeable effect
Don’t know/refused
Weighted by employees at
worksite
50/75
Covered
worksites
worksites
% [95% CI]
% [95% CI]
5.1
6.5
[2.7-7.5]
[3.7-9.2]
33.8
32.9
[15.2-52.4]
[16.1-49.7]
20.0
18.2
[5.6-34.3]
[5.3-31.1]
9.3
8.4
[-0.9-19.6]
[-0.8-17.6]
27.5
30.0
[17.7-37.3]
[20.2-39.9]
4.3
3.9
[-2.3-11.0]
[-2.0-9.9]
808
988
Weighted by worksite
50/75
Covered
worksites
worksites
% [95% CI]
% [95% CI]
6.4
15.1
[3.3-9.6]
[7.3-22.8]
31.0
18.0
[16.5-45.6]
[8.5-27.5]
7.0
3.1
[3.6-10.3]
[1.6-4.5]
1.0
0.5
[0.1-1.8]
[0.1-1.0]
53.8
62.9
[40.4-67.2]
[51.6-74.2]
0.7
0.4
[0.1-1.3]
[0.1-0.8]
808
988
Unweighted N
Source: Worksite Survey Q56.
Sample: Asked of all worksites that self-report that they are covered by the FMLA.
The Worksite Survey also asked covered worksites directly about the impact of intermittent leave on
productivity and profitability: “Q54. FMLA allows employees to take intermittent leave. Has leave
taken on an intermittent basis had an impact, either positive or negative, on this location’s
Abt Associates Inc.
▌pg. 157
Family and Medical Leave in 2012: Final Report
productivity?” and “Q55. Has leave taken on an intermittent basis had an impact, either positive or
negative, on this location’s profitability?”
Again, few worksites report negative impacts of intermittent leave. Weighting by worksites, 0.4% of
50/75 worksites report a large negative impact on productivity, and another 2.7% report a moderate
negative impact (Exhibit 8.5.3). Fewer 50/75 worksites report intermittent leave having a negative
impact on profitability: 0.2% report a “large” negative impact, and 1.4% report a “moderate” negative
impact. However, weighting by employees, the reported negative impacts are considerably larger:
9.3% and 8.9% of employees work at worksites that report a “large” or “moderate” impact on
productivity and 8.0% and 6.7% work at worksites that report a “large” or “moderate” impact on
profitability, respectively.
Abt Associates Inc.
▌pg. 158
Family and Medical Leave in 2012: Final Report
Exhibit 8.5.3 Impact of intermittent leave on productivity and profitability
Intermittent
leave has the
following
impact:
50/75 worksites
Any
Small
Moderate
Large
Positive
Productivity
% [95% CI]
14.3
[-3.9-32.4]
12.4
[-6.1-30.9]
1.7
[0.4-3.0]
0.2
[-0.1-0.4]
Weighted by employees at worksite
Some positive, some
Negative
negative
Profitability
% [95% CI]
12.7
[-5.7-31.2]
10.1
[-8.8-29.0]
2.4
[-1.0-5.9]
0.2
[-0.1-0.5]
Productivity
% [95% CI]
25.0
[12.3-37.7]
6.8
[1.4-12.2]
8.9
[4.1-13.7]
9.3
[-0.9-19.4]
Profitability
% [95% CI]
17.5
[6.5-28.5]
2.8
[0.9-4.8]
6.7
[1.0-12.4]
8.0
[-2.3-18.2]
Productivity
% [95% CI]
4.0
[1.9-6.1]
2.5
[0.8-4.1]
1.3
[0.3-2.2]
0.2
[-0.2-0.6]
Profitability
% [95% CI]
Weighted by worksite
Positive
Productivity
% [95% CI]
1.5
15.5
[0.1-2.9]
[0.1-30.8]
1.1
14.3
[-0.1-2.4]
[-1.4-29.9]
0.3
1.1
[-0.1-0.7]
[-0.3-2.4]
0.1
0.2
[-0.1-0.3]
[-0.1-0.4]
808
Profitability
% [95% CI]
14.6
[-1.0-30.2]
8.1
[-6.2-22.4]
6.3
[-4.3-16.8]
0.2
[-0.1-0.5]
Some positive, some
negative
Negative
Productivity
% [95% CI]
5.9
[2.5-9.2]
2.7
[0.4-5.0]
2.7
[1.3-4.2]
0.4
[0.2-0.6]
Profitability
% [95% CI]
2.9
[1.3-4.4]
1.2
[0.5-1.9]
1.4
[0.4-2.5]
0.2
[0.0-0.4]
Unweighted N
All covered worksites
Any
14.5
11.4
22.6
17.5
3.7
1.4
7.9
5.1
2.6
5.5
[-1.8-30.7] [-5.2-28.0]
[11.5-33.7]
[7.3-27.7]
[1.8-5.5]
[0.2-2.6]
[0.0-15.8]
[-1.4-11.5]
[1.4-3.7]
[-0.2-11.1]
Small
12.8
9.0
6.2
2.7
2.3
1.0
7.4
2.8
1.4
2.4
[-3.8-29.3] [-7.9-25.9]
[1.5-10.9]
[1.0-4.4]
[0.8-3.8]
[-0.1-2.2]
[-0.5-15.2]
[-2.2-7.9]
[0.5-2.3]
[-0.9-5.6]
Moderate
1.5
2.2
8.0
7.7
1.2
0.3
0.5
2.2
1.1
3.0
[0.4-2.7]
[-0.9-5.3]
[3.9-12.2]
[1.7-13.6]
[0.4-2.0]
[-0.1-0.6]
[-0.0-1.0]
[-2.0-6.3]
[0.5-1.6]
[-1.7-7.7]
Large
0.1
0.2
8.3
7.1
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
[-0.1-0.4]
[-0.1-0.5]
[-0.9-17.5]
[-2.1-16.3]
[-0.1-0.6]
[-0.1-0.3]
[-0.0-0.1]
[-0.0-0.2]
[0.1-0.2]
[0.0-0.1]
Unweighted N
988
Source: Worksite Survey Q54, Q54a, A54b, Q55, Q55a, Q55b.
Sample: Asked of worksites that self-report that they are covered by the FMLA. Only worksites that reported any impact are asked the size of the impact.
Abt Associates Inc.
Productivity
% [95% CI]
Profitability
% [95% CI]
2.5
[0.8-4.1]
1.0
[0.4-1.6]
1.4
[0.1-2.8]
0.0
[-0.0-0.1]
0.7
[0.2-1.2]
0.5
[0.1-0.9]
0.1
[-0.1-0.4]
0.1
[-0.1-0.3]
2.6
[-0.6-5.9]
2.0
[-1.2-5.2]
0.7
[0.1-1.2]
0.0
[-0.0-0.0]
0.4
[0.0-0.8]
0.2
[0.0-0.3]
0.2
[-0.1-0.6]
0.0
[-0.0-0.1]
▌pg. 159
Family and Medical Leave in 2012: Final Report
Finally, Exhibit 8.5.4 presents results on the impact of intermittent leave from the 2000 survey (2012
results weighted by worksite are repeated to aid comparability). There do not appear to have been
changes, but the estimates are imprecise and the response categories have changed.
Exhibit 8.5.4 Impact of intermittent leave on productivity and profitability at covered worksites,
2012 and 2000
Impact
Productivity
Large negative impact
Moderate negative impact
Small negative impact
No impact
Small positive impact
Moderate positive impact
Large positive impact
Unweighted N
Profitability
Large negative impact
All covered worksites 2012
% [95% CI]
0.1
[0.1-0.2]
1.1
[0.5-1.6]
1.4
[0.5-2.3]
38.6
[16.4-60.7]
7.4
[-0.5-15.2]
0.5
[-0.0-1.0]
0.1
[-0.0-0.1]
988
All covered worksites 2000
% [95% CI]
0.5
[0.1-0.9]
12.2
[-2.1-26.5]
5.4
[3.8-7]
81.2
[67.5-94.9]
N/A
N/A
N/A
874
0.1
0.1
[0.0-0.1]
[0-0.2]
Moderate negative impact
3.0
1.7
[-1.7-7.7]
[0.8-2.6]
Small negative impact
2.4
4.2
[-0.9-5.6]
[2.2-6.2]
No impact
48.1
93.7
[23.3-72.9]
[91-96.4]
Small positive impact
2.8
N/A
[-2.2-7.9]
Moderate positive impact
2.2
N/A
[-2.0-6.3]
Large positive impact
0.1
N/A
[-0.0-0.2]
Unweighted N
988
861
Source: 2012 Worksite Survey Q54, Q54a, A54b, Q55, Q55a, Q55b; 2000 Report Table A2-6.13.
2012 Sample: Asked of worksites that self-report that they are covered by the FMLA. Only worksites that
reported any impact are asked the size of the impact. Weighted by worksite.
Cells with “N/A” indicate that the data were not reported in the 2000 Report.
Abt Associates Inc.
▌pg. 160
Family and Medical Leave in 2012: Final Report
9.
Conclusion
This report has presented the results of the 2012 Worksite and Employee Surveys. These surveys
update earlier pairs of surveys conducted in 1995 and 2000. Changes in survey content and survey
methods, as well as sample size constraints, limit our ability to consistently make comparisons across
surveys. Even when comparisons are possible, the much weaker labor market which accompanied the
2012 surveys (relative to 1995 and 2000) needs to be considered in interpreting longitudinal results.
In addition, samples sizes generally are too small to explore most differences across respondent
groups.
This conclusion begins by briefly reviewing the findings of the 2012 surveys. It then suggests some
directions for further study.
9.1
Evidence from the 2012 Surveys
With respect to the current coverage of the Family and Medical Leave Act, only slightly more than
half of all employees are eligible for the Act’s job-protected leave (59%). As discussed in Section 2.2,
expanding the eligibility requirements to allow employees at smaller worksites access to leave would
modestly increase eligibility. Currently, employee eligibility provisions require that the employee
work at a location with at least 50 employees within 75 miles of the employee’s worksite. Lowering
the cutoff to 30 employees would increase the percentage of employees who meet the eligibility
requirements from 59% to 63%; lowering it to 20 employees would increase it to 67%. Maintaining
the 50 employees requirement, but lowering the hours of service requirement from an average of 24
hours per week (1,250 hours in the 12 months prior to leave) to 15 hours per week (780 hours) would
increase eligibility from 59% to 63%.
On the employee side, leave is not uncommon: 13% of all employees took leave for a qualifying
FMLA reason in the past year. This is unchanged from 2000. Rates of leave taking are higher among
those eligible for the FMLA (16%) than for those not eligible (10%). As discussed in Section 4.1,
some of this difference may be due to the causal effect of the FMLA. However, some of the
difference (our analyses suggest nearly half) is likely due to the factors that also affect employee
eligibility (e.g., worksite size, job tenure, hours worked) such that at least some of this difference
would probably remain even in the absence of the FMLA. Consistent with this interpretation, simply
limiting the sample to those who meet the job tenure and hours worked requirement substantially
shrinks the eligible/ineligible difference. As discussed above, the survey methods used in this report
are not appropriate for establishing the causal impact of the FMLA, whether on leave taking or on
other outcomes.
The FMLA guarantees the right to return to the pre-leave position (or one nearly identical to it—i.e.,
an equivalent position); however, the Act includes no requirement that employers provide any pay
during the leave. The Act (Public Law 103-3, § 102(d)(2)) generally permits employees to substitute
accrued paid leave for unpaid FMLA, or the employer to require that employees do so. Nevertheless,
most employees receive some pay while on leave: 48% receive full pay and another 17% receive
partial pay, usually, but not exclusively, through regular paid vacation leave, sick leave, or other
“paid time off” hours. Rates of full pay drop sharply for leaves of more than 10 days (60% for leaves
of 10 days or less, 40% for leaves of more than 10 days). Most employees who took leave in the past
year report that they returned to work because there was no longer a need for leave, but inability to
Abt Associates Inc.
▌pg. 161
Family and Medical Leave in 2012: Final Report
afford leave is another common reason for returning to work, especially for longer leaves (40%
overall; 37% for leaves of 10 days or less; 43% for leaves of more than 10 days).
A small proportion of employees report that they needed leave but were unable to take it in the past
year (5%). Rates of unmet need for leave were similar across eligible and ineligible employees, but
more than twice as high as in 2000. Inability to afford leave is the reason given by nearly half of those
with unmet need for leave (46%).
On the worksite side, most covered worksites report little difficulty complying with the FMLA (only
14% report “somewhat difficult” and only 1% report “very difficult; weighted by worksite). However,
30% report that the cost of administering the FMLA is rising. Similarly, few worksites report negative
impacts on “employee productivity, absenteeism, turnover, career advancement, [and] morale, … [or
on] business profitability” (7% report “somewhat negative”; 1% report “very negative”); and these
negative reports are more common among large worksites (weighting by employees, 20% report
“somewhat negative” and 9% report “very negative”).
While there has been considerable discussion of intermittent leave (that is, two or more episodes of
leave for the same reason), employee responses suggest that such leave is not common (only about
3% of employees took any intermittent leave). Again, reports of negative impacts on profitability and
productivity due to intermittent leave are rare (6% or less), though again more common when
weighting by employees (as high as 25%).
9.2
Directions for Future Study
This project has updated the 2000 surveys with data current as of early 2012. In retrospect, the gap
between these two sets of surveys was probably too long. Planning for another set of surveys towards
the end of the decade seems appropriate. In as much as there is interest in further disaggregation of
the data (e.g., of the Worksite Survey by industry, or of the Employee Survey by policy groups of
particular interest), much larger samples would be needed.
With respect to content, the switch to a one-year recall period appears to make the results easier to
explain and more useful. There appears to be interest in additional questions on disability status and
on effects on employers.
The approach taken in this study has been quantitative and descriptive. Complementary studies would
change these two characteristics. First, we have tabulated worksite and employee responses to closeend survey questions. Particularly with respect to worksites, these close-end responses are
informative about behavior, but less informative as to decision processes, perceived costs, and
adjustment strategies. Qualitative field work with worksites and employees might be insightful for
better understanding worksite-employee interactions in the use and implementation of the FMLA.
Second, it would be valuable to do additional comparative analyses of data from the 1995, 2000 and
2012 surveys, comparing covered to uncovered worksites and eligible to ineligible employees. This
report includes some such analyses; more detailed studies (in particular, controlling for more
observed differences) might be insightful.
Third, our approach has been descriptive, focusing on tabulating responses to survey questions. Some
of the key questions are causal; e.g., To what extent does the FMLA increase leave taking? We have
Abt Associates Inc.
▌pg. 162
Family and Medical Leave in 2012: Final Report
not directly addressed that question and other issues of causation. Those issues of causation are
worthy of further study, but would require very different methods and possibly different data.
Abt Associates Inc.
▌pg. 163
Family and Medical Leave in 2012: Final Report
References
Cantor, David, Jane Waldfogel, Jeffrey Kerwin, Mareena McKinley Wright, Kerry Levin, John
Rauch, Tracey Hagerty, and Martha Stapleton Kudela. (2001). Balancing the needs of families and
employers: Family and medical leave surveys. Rockville MD: Westat.
Change.gov: The Office of the President Elect. (2008). The Obama-Biden Plan: Family agenda.
Retrieved from
http://web.archive.org/web/20130425003444/http://change.gov/agenda/family_agenda/
Clabault, Dolly. (2011, February 14). Minimizing FMLA abuse. Alexandria, VA: Society for Human
Resource Management. Retrieved from
http://www.shrm.org/hrdisciplines/benefits/Articles/Pages/FMLA_Abuse.aspx
Daley, Kelly, Courtney Kennedy, Marci Schalk, Julie Pacer, Allison Ackermann, Alyssa Pozniak, and
Jacob Klerman. (2012). Family and medical leave in 2012: Methodology report. Cambridge, MA:
Abt Associates. Retrieved from
http://www.dol.gov/asp/evaluation/fmla/FMLAMethodologyReport.pdf
Donze, P. L. (2005, August). Gender role attitudes: 1994–2002. Paper presented at the meeting of the
American Sociological Association, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
McGarry, Nancy, Jacob Klerman, Kelly Daley, and Alyssa Pozniak. (2012). Family and medical
leave in 2012: Public use file documentation. Cambridge, MA: Abt Associates. Retrieved from
http://www.dol.gov/asp/evaluation/fmla/FMLASurveys-PUFdocumentation.pdf
Moss, Peter, and Fred Deven, eds. (1999). Parental leave: Progress or pitfall? Research and policy
issues in Europe. Brussels: CBGS Publications.
OECD (2010a). OECD family database, PF2.2: Use of childbirth-related leave by mothers and
fathers. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/53/57/41927348.pdf
OECD (2010b). OECD family database, PF2.3: Additional leave entitlements for working parents.
Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/53/58/41927359.pdf
Olney, James. (2011). The impact of the FMLA on benefits practices. Human Resources eLine, 10(1).
Associated Financial Group. Retrieved from
http://www.associatedfinancialgroup.com/Data/eLineNewsletters/HumanResources/Vol10/No1jan11/
hrartjan11.asp
Pozniak, Alyssa, Krista Olson, Katherine Wen, Kelly Daley, and Jacob Klerman. (2012). Family and
medical leave in 2012: Detailed results appendix. Cambridge, MA: Abt Associates. Retrieved from
http://www.dol.gov/asp/evaluation/fmla/FMLADetailedResultsAppendix.pdf
Prohaska, A., and J. Zipp. (2009). Gender inequality and the Family and Medical Leave Act. Paper
presented at the American Sociological Association Annual Meetings, San Francisco, CA.
Ruhm, Christopher J. (1998). The economic consequences of parental leave mandates: Lessons from
Europe. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 113(1), 285–317.
Abt Associates Inc.
▌pg. 164
Family and Medical Leave in 2012: Final Report
U.S. Department of Labor. (1996). A Workable Balance; Report to Congress on Family and Medical
Leave Policies. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor. Retrieved from
http://www.dol.gov/whd/fmla/1995Report/family.htm
U.S. Department of Labor. (2003). Wage and Hour Division Non-Administrator Letter (FMLA 20034). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor. Retrieved from
http://www.dol.gov/whd/opinion/FMLA/2003_07_29_4_FMLA.pdf
U.S. Department of Labor. (2010). Administrator's Interpretation No. 2010-3. Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Labor. Retrieved from
http://www.dol.gov/WHD/opinion/adminIntrprtn/FMLA/2010/FMLAAI2010_3.htm
U.S. Department of Labor. (2011). Fiscal Year 2012 Budget in Brief: State Paid Leave Fund.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor. Retrieved from
http://www.dol.gov/dol/budget/2012/bib.htm#statepl
U.S. Department of Labor. (2012). Need time? The employee’s guide to the Family and Medical
Leave Act. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor. Retrieved from
http://www.dol.gov/whd/fmla/employeeguide.htm
U.S. Department of Labor. (2013a). Administrator's Interpretation No. 2013-1. Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Labor. Retrieved from
http://www.dol.gov/WHD/opinion/adminIntrprtn/FMLA/2013/FMLAAI2013_1.htm
U.S. Department of Labor. (2013b). The Family and Medical Leave Act. Final Rule. Federal Register
78:25 p. 8834. Retrieved from
http://webapps.dol.gov/FederalRegister/HtmlDisplay.aspx?DocId=26631&Month=2&Year=2013
U.S. Department of Labor. (2013c). Frequently Asked Questions and Answers About the Revisions to
the Family and Medical Leave Act. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor. Retrieved from
http://www.dol.gov/whd/fmla/finalrule/NonMilitaryFAQs.htm
Waldfogel, Jane. (1999). The impact of the Family and Medical Leave Act. Journal of Policy
Analysis and Management, 18(2), 281–302.
Abt Associates Inc.
▌pg. 165